As a dual citizen of Ireland and the US, I was brought up (like many folks around here) by a family that revered the Kennedys. And frankly I still do in some ways. However, this immigration bill taking shape leaves behind so much that is central to the progressive view of immigration.
I won’t detail it too much, aside from my own problem of “guest workers”. “Guest workers” are residents given little real security or invitation to our culture, left behind to form an underclass in a society, left without a real path to citizenship. I’m surprised we haven’t heard more about this movement to add more byzantine barriers to American citizenship. It gives lie to Emma Lazarus and our tradition as a melting pot to declare that one large set of American residents is banned from truly joining our community. For those who want more this is a good place to start.
But this betrayal of liberal ideals to get a bill passed in reminiscient of the disastrous education bill that Bush signed. I remember that I had the highest respect for Tony Blair before Bushie got his claws in him and dragged him along on his harebrained scheme. Is Bush doing the same with Kennedy?
Suddenly he should retire?
<
p>
Maybe I’d feel that way if the following weren’t true:
<
p>
We’re not going to be able to pass something better.
<
p>
Maybe it would be more fruitful to target the DINOs who are as bad as the worst Republicans on immigration, hoping to score cheap political points based of lies and fear.
<
p>
I have a far larger problem with Kennedy trying to thwart Cape Wind, but still I don’t think it’s time for him to pack it in.
Ryan, I agree with you, that Ted is bigger than one issue and cannot be judged by his stance on immigrantion, etc, but you should follow your own advice because you are all to willing to urge the replacement or retirement of state legisaltors who do not agree with you on the issues.
… progressive argument for either side of the immigration issue. Same cant really be said for many other issues.
And one that has Capitol Hill all snarled up. I think it’s possble to make a solid progressive case on immigration, but that case wouldn’t get out of Congress. As for what we have in front of us, it strikes me that second-class residency is a permanent solution to a temporary political situation.
There is no progressive side to sending them (away from their real) homes, packing.
<
p>
There’s certainly plenty of crazy Democrats arguing for that, but they’re not progressives by any stretch of the imagination.
… one of the ‘either side’s as “sending them (away from their real) homes, packing”, then yes you are right.
<
p>
Here is an interesting take from Alterman on the issue. I wouldn’t call him progressive but that’s only because he isn’t afraid of the word liberal.
I don’t think I necessary disagree with him on trying to eliminate illegal immigration (though I do with putting up a fence, precisely for the reason he is for it: he thinks it would be effective, I don’t).
<
p>
What I’m talking about is deportation of the immigrants who are already here; he didn’t necessarily talk about it that much.
<
p>
It wouldn’t be right, effective, efficient or even moral to force them home, not when they’ve been living here for a very long time.
<
p>
Yet, he does raise some fair points. We need to refurbish our immigration system so that it works, is effective and doesn’t attract boat loads of people who illegally cross a border. A fence won’t do the trick, but a sensible policy that allows for opportunity and doesn’t seperate families will.
… that there are reasonable ways in which progressives and disagree, although I suppost strategically this isn’t a strong characteristic to have in many ways, as evidenced by the lock-step right (not all, obviously, but a significant bunch).
I’m still not sure someone can be all that progressive and support a fence between us and Mexico. Progressives are supposed to be reality-based and everything we know about fences has shown they either aren’t effective or, in the case of Israel, cause more problems than they solve.
<
p>
I’m not sure if you listened in tonight on LeftAhead, but Eldridge had some good points on immigration.
<
p>
1. A fair trade policy, one that strives to improve conditions in America and in countries like Mexico, could improve the situation in Mexico and other countries so there aren’t so many people desperate to come in. As he said, that would solve the problem far more effectively than a fense (and I’d add “morally” too).
<
p>
2. He’s against guest-worker programs, which I was in favor of before. I’m still undecided on guest worker programs, I see good and bad (and, unlike the article you linked to, I don’t think a guest worker program in france or germany is anything akin to migratory workers in the US, for example). However, he made a few good points there and I’m certainly weighing the issue more.
This immigration reform, while not perfect, allows for people who have lived in America for decades – who have built a life here – to stay here. That’s logical. There are other parts that aren’t as logical, but it’s a compromise
<
p>
If a congressman created a bill that said, “keep the brown people out,” I’d be calling for their resignation too. When you stamp on civil rights, you’re stamping on something far larger than any single issue. A threat to injustice to anyone is a threat to injustice for everyone, according to Martin Luther King – and he’s right.
<
p>
So, when a State Rep or Senator, for example, thinks gay people should be subhuman and not allowed to marry the person they love – or not get equal protection under the law – then, ya, I think it’s time they be sent packing. However, the vast majority of those people are also wrong on so many issues that they need to be sent home on a plethora of issues.
If– a very big if– there were a way to secure the border, by fence or otherwise, then therate of illegal arrivals would decline to zero, or perhaps to an acceptably low rate. Then, all illegals who are presently here can simply be left alone; their children will be citizens by birth, and within a generation there are much fewer such people. No need for mass deportation, and no grossly unfair rewarding of manifestly unlawful behavior at the expense of the rule followers.
<
p>
Of course, how one can secure the border is something of a difficult problem.
Every time I hear this I just think how short sighted and bigoted it is in it’s very roots. Let’s blame the slave labor we import into this country illegally and blame them. If there are no means to get jobs then people will not be coming into the country. The companies that prey on these people should be the ones targeted. If we fine companies millions of dollars and put company executives or small company owners in jail, I think their hiring practices will change. They are the ones who import slave labor, skirt taxes and allow the people of this country to pickup the tab for health care. They are the scumbags in this country who need to be addressed.
But that doesn’t mean that illegals aren’t illegal, and doesn’t change the fact that special privileges given to illegals over those who actually apply to immigrate is grossly unfaor to the latter.
<
p>
If that makes me a bigot, BFD.
<
p>
I’m already a bigot for thinking that SSM should not have been created by judicial fiat. Or defended by extra-legal parliamentary trickery. And for thinking that Roe v. Wade is contitutionally indefensible. Maybe even for thinking the call to Ameriquest was beyond the pale, or for thinking John Kerry is unbearably pompous.
<
p>
If I am a bigot for thinking that immigration must be at a level somewhat lower than “infinite” and that people who flout the laws—including employers, if they know (although how on earth can they?)– relating to that limit don’t deserve to be taken out for an ice cream cone, that’s fine as well.
<
p>
All the term really means at this point is “someone who does not agree with the speaker/writer” anyway.
<
p>
And “imported slave labor”? Please.
I’m already a bigot for thinking that SSM should not have been […] defended by extra-legal parliamentary trickery.
<
p>
It wasn’t, so I really don’t understand the relevance.
I really don’t care about your laundry list of Ameriquest and John Kerry, etc. Good for you. Enjoy that.
<
p>
<
p>
I got a little hint for you. If the person accepts horrible work conditions and tell them that they are required to work on Saturdays but will only be paid half of their far below minimum wage pay because it’s not a normal workday. Then you might have a clue. Employers know exactly who they hire. You don’t sound like a naive person to me, but it appears that you will allow yourself to pick and choose items to fit your ideas.
<
p>
What I’m saying is that building a 2000 mile wall is useless and stupid, if people want to come into this country a wall is not going to hold them back. What you need to attack is the root cause of the problem and you do that by finding out why people are crossing the border. It’s not that difficult to figure out. But instead we get the workers, blame the mother who gets paid 3 dollars an hour and fly her a few thousand miles away from her 3 month old baby and don’t forget to build that effing wall. What you need to do it get past blame the undoc workers and look at the causes to determine a solution.
I agree that a 2000 mile wall is useless and stupid, particularly when we have significant coastal borders not amenable to walling. But that just means I would like to find a more practical means of securing the border. I don’t have an answer, but it seems silly to just legalize all of the illegal immigrants– that approach has already been tried and found wanting.
<
p>
As for the employers, when you find the ones who seek illegals in order to avoid paying the minimum wage, I would advocate prosecution, and legislation to dramatically stiffen the penalty for doing so.
<
p>
But for the other 99.997% of employers, they are simply looking to fill low skill posts. They are not INS agents, and have no expertise in discerning legal residents from illegals. They ask for a driver’s license and a social security card, and they get them. How are they supposed to tell real from fake documents? They can’t. If they guess wrong, they’ll be denounced as discriminating racists, and probably sued. And this is supposed to be prosecuted? It isn’t much different from the silly California proposal to make public school teachers and ER docs informal agents of the INS.
Someone understands the Maginot line issue.
<
p>
But as for…
<
p>
But for the other 99.997% of employers, they are simply looking to fill low skill posts. They are not INS agents, and have no expertise in discerning legal residents from illegals. They ask for a driver’s license and a social security card, and they get them. How are they supposed to tell real from fake documents
<
p>
…it should be obvious. When an employee fills out a W-4 (IRS) form (used to determine the number of dependents used to determine withholding for income taxes), the employer can send the form to the feds, and the feds can tell the prospective employer whether the name and the SS number match up. If they don’t, it should cue the employer that it is likely that the prospective employee is–um–undocumented.
I suppose you mean that they will just go around the wall, as I hope that illegal immigrants aren’t traveloling in Runstedt’s panzers.
<
p>
Your suggestion, while super in theory, underscores the real probelm with prosecution of employers. How many hiring transactions occur daily in the US? Some of these are for day laborers. The feds response to the emplyer inquirty would need to be nearly instantaneous in order to prevent significant economic dislocation.
How many hiring transactions occur daily in the US? Some of these are for day laborers.
<
p>
I presume that those who hire the day laborers are keeping some kind of books that reflect their income and expenditures–including the day laborers. Otherwise, how can they pay their income taxes?
<
p>
Simple solution: confiscate their books (subpoena, of course) and see what they reveal. Of course, not even Republicans are interested in doing so.
I never mention Ted retiring. There’s a difference between a golden age being over and someone’s value being used up. I was clear about that in the diary.
<
p>
Fact is, we don’t need to pass anything “better” because we don’t need to pass anything. The only reaason immigration is suddenly an issue is that the Republicans realized that brown people in the Middle East weren’t sufficiently scary to voters, so they’re turning brown people in the US into a threat. I’m sorry that the Democrats have bought into the fiction that immigration is a problem.
<
p>
How do you drag yourself outta bed with such cynicism wearing you down?
<
p>
Immigration has always been an issue, far as I can remember (and that’s a long time). Most likely it will continue to be an issue. What takes my breath away is people -like you- throwing out the baby, the bath water, the soap and the towel, as a palliative to your cynicism (how’s that working by the way??) and expecting others the look on in approval.
<
p>
Far as I can tell, Ted Kennedy has never claimed to be a messiah, so why do you expect perfection?
Immigration has been one of several issues for a long time, granted. But is was an issue on the level with, I don’t know, affordable housing. But when was it a major issue? Not in 2004, where it was limited to people grumbling about the slogan Viva Bush. Not at all mentioned in 2000 or 1996.
<
p>
I don’t expect perfection from Ted Kennedy, but I expect far better than asphyxiating public schools and creating an underclass in our country. Nothing’s going on today that wasn’t going on 2 years ago with immigration. Why not wait another two years until a Democratic president can implement meaningful reform?
“Creating a permanent underclass.”? You should leave your bubble for a few hours and visit a local farm or a restaurant in Chinatown or go to the Cape and look at anyone not on vacation. Most of them are the permanent underclass you’re allegedly so concerned that Ted will be creating with this legislation. They are here. They exist. They put food on your table and wash your car and green your lawn and tidy up your summer cottage. You think that there’s really no need to pass an immigration bill and that the “immigration crisis” is just a political football for the Rs?
You really have no clue.
And you obviously have not read the legislation but it appears that you’ve fully digested the union propaganda. You want to take shots at Ted at least understand some of the more basic elements of the issues he’s addressing.
Leaving aside your invective, there is a major difference. Disadvantaged immigrants in our country have a legal pathway to follow toward citizenship. Most get here thanks to a family connection, and they can climb the arduous ladder toward citizenship. “Guest workers” can be told to go home at any time, and have no reason to invest in preparing for citizenship, since according to this bill they won’t have a crack at it. That is the major difference — creating a legal class that will be openly used to solve our labor issues, and nothing more.
<
p>
And considering the large number of my students’ families who are immigrants, considering I have a number of relatives in country who are not citizens, you can withhold your presumption that anyone who disagrees with you lives in a bubble.
When 12 million Americans who have been here for years and years are being attacked left and right. Yes, it is a problem, when people have to choose between deportation or health care. Yes, it is a problem, if children can’t go to school because they, according to US law, they’re here illegaly – though, they have no control over that.
<
p>
These are reforms we need to make. Why? Because, quite clearly, we have problems when it comes to immigration.
When 12 million Americans who have been here for years and years…
<
p>
The fact is that people have resided in the USofA for any length of time does not mean that they are Americans. They may become Americans after going through the naturalization process. My mother-in-law, a German citizen when she arrived here in 1957, remained a German until she returned to Germany 30 years (almost to the day) later. She was never an American.
<
p>
My spouse, who was considered “stateless” (his father was a displaced person during WWII) by Germany when he was dragged to the US was also considered stateless by the US. He became an American when he was naturalized several years later.
A piece of paper doesn’t indicate American status. People who have lived in America for years and year, participate in our society and are in some large part shaped by American culture and help shape it themselves are in fact Americans, whether they’re documented or not.
<
p>
Any of the 12-13 million undocumented Americans should be allowed to stay. Maybe, because they went about it the wrong way, they deserve to pay some kind of penalty – monetary or otherwise – but it neither makes sense nor would be logistic to even attempt to find, prosecute and deport the over 12 million undocumenteds in this country.
“In my opinion, a piece of paper doesn’t indicate American status.”
<
p>
In the opinion of ICE agents, it does. Hence the issue.
he’s not a member of the executive branch of government. Because ICE asserts authority it therefore has it?!? None of the people ICE arrested had “papers” in their possession declaring themselves american but not all of those arrested were undocumented. Yet they were still taken into custody. The Justice Department could use your kind of justifications.
And “hence the issue”? What issue? You’ve just spent a hell of a lot of time trying to deny the issue. Earlier you exalt in your immigration bona fides because some of your students students are immigrants and you claim to have family that are immigrants to justify. And this somehow justifies why you apparently know what you’re talking about when you say there is no immigration problem. Eliminating for a moment that you may be the only person in the country, legal or illegal, who does not believe there is an immigration problem, I see no basis to conclude that because you know an immigrant means you know about immigration. Hence the disconnect.
“Because ICE asserts authority it therefore has it?!? “
<
p>
Yes. That is how government works. We can sue, protest, write letters, elect different officials, et cetera, but until other government apparatus deny it, ICE has the authority it claims and its organizational superiors are willing to give it. It’s almost a tautology.
<
p>
Despite your keening profanity and need for ad hominem attacks, the fact that I disagree with you doesn’t make you my moral superior on this issue. It’s a shame you were unable to engage me on the facts; we could have had an interesting discussion.
With all the moral and ethical challenges that man has, and his repeated egregious behavior over forty years. How can anyone justify that mans prescence in congress. Is no conduct so despicable that democrats can excuse it? Does the end justify the means? many folks continual decry certain behavior of politicians and appointees from other political parties and use as ammunition: the end does not justify the means.
<
p>
I don’t get it. Doesn’t anyone have any ethics any longer? Does no one one “do the right thing”.
<
p>
I learned one thing many years ago. Set the good example. Leadership by example.
I vote for the candidate whom strikes me as the most ethical and enlightened. I do not vote along a party line. Both parties have great candidates and it appears that Mayor Bloomberg may fracture the two party system—-finally.
<
p>
I find the present resident in the White House as disappointing as our current resident in the corner officeat the state house. Political affiliation does not have the market cornered on incompetence. Because Massachusetts is 95% democrat, most of our unethical and incompetent elected officials are democrat. If we had a 60-40 representation in our state house of democrat viz a vis republican obviously the numbers would change.
<
p>
All that being said, it was time for Senator Kennedy to go and enjoy what time he has remaining last election. I believe his issue with OBS is accelerating and he will be required for medical reasons to retire before his term expires and our present governor will see fit to appoint himself as US Senator and resign as governor. It appears that it is now a Massachusets tradition.
He’s the most ethically challenged and worst president since Nixon and had your stamp of approval.
<
p>
That’s what you call leading by example?
<
p>
You can hate Ted all you want but this crap doesn’t fly, taking the high road on politicians you support while standing with Bush, I don’t think so, it completely makes a mockery of your arguement.
What? Did you read the post. IMHO our president is a lunatic. I don’t hate our senior senator. I let the facts speak for themselves. I’ve been a voter for over forty years . Please save the theatrics. Senator Kennedy’s antics are well documented. Need I start muck raking? I’ve got a very long memory.
Don’t give me this crap about going after Bush now, he’s a lame duck and Republicans can’t use him in the upcoming elections, so instead they are making the case for someone who’s not Bush. You guys have been pushing this arse for the last 7 years, now all of a sudden he’s a lunatic. Save it. In 2004, who did you support, was Bush ethical and enlightened? I take your posts and “Yes” and that’s why you are full of it.
by melodramatically proclaiming one’s disillusionment with EMK…all sorts of hacks at the Globe and Herald make a great to-do about breaking with Teddy on a regular basis.
Maybe O’Reilly needs to run against Teddy.
<
p>
Just a thought.
Not sure Bill O’Reilly is a resident of Massachusetts. Regardless, it’s always easy to score points as a loyal Bay State Democrat to proclaim blind loyalty to someone with the surname Kennedy than to question any of his actions.
… running against John Kerry. You really need to keep up …
<
p>
Start here
Because he’s a household name, like Cher or Obama. I’d like to think such snideness is beneath you MFW — we both know I keep up. Regardless I’ve met O’Reilly a couple times, I’m already going to vote for him, and he’s getting a contribution from me.
<
p>
Wow — even question the legendary Ted Kennedy, and all the kneejerk liberals get upset. Phew. I’m related to the guy and I don’t even get that verklempt.
I particularly enjoy his posts. Can’t wait for the latest installment of of Mr. Ed Goes To Washington.
<
p>
Ahem …
<
p>
As your Senator I will fight for an immigration reform that will be the gold standard, plus free beer. Senator Kerry does not want you to have free beer. Thank you.
<
p>
P.S. Did I mention Iraq? Yes, John Kerry is personally responsible for Iraq.
does include a means for all existing undocumented workers a path to citizenship. Quite amazing in you factor in the R’s voting for the bill. Looks like this part will stay intact. Did anyone think we could get that part passed?
from http://www.miracoali…
<
p>
<
p>
Personally, especially as a dual citizen of England and the US, this immigration bill is of great importance to me. While I think any quotas limiting immigrants from certain countries is a bad idea, increasing access for those with higher education is good, though limiting the access for extended family members is clearly bad. The Z visa process is hugely important step for normalize undocumented immigrants, but I think the $5k per person is too high. I’m still not getting the concerns about guest workers completely, but I had a conversation with Jamie Eldridge about it last week and I’m seeing there’s some problems, but I think as long as the same labor conditions are applied to guest workers as all workers then it’s fine (especially as not all people coming here to work are interested in becoming pernament residents). And the border fence is clearly a huge waste of money.
<
p>
Thoughs obviously this bill has problems, I think Ted Kennedy’s done a tremendous job getting this so far. I think its more important to get a bill that moves us somewhat, and starts a track for normalization, and then be able to improve it once we have a Dem in the WH and a solid majority in the Senate.
If only the Dems were in a strong enough position to leverage in UAFA. Until then, too many families will remain unfairly divided.
that the current family reunification standards are already lacking in excluding families with same-sex partners. like I said there are many improvements to immigration policy that can be done, and I think will be done when we fully control the Congress and hopefully the Presidency.
You do the best you can in the best interest of the entire nation.
<
p>
The function of the United States of America is not to support, protect, and defend as well as feed the entire world. Our purpose is to take care of us and if able and willing help others who in turn help us. We are not the savior of a failed, criminal political/economic elite who control Mexico. Mexicans have and had historically had an opportunity to clean out their corrupt politicians. Apparently there is a reason that the further south you go there is an equal percentage of increase in corrption.
remember senate cloture vote is the “real vote.” that’s where they need 60. i think george bush, john mccain, and ted kennedy have 62 votes, but it’s slipping.
<
p>
after the cloture vote, when the actual bill comes up, some senators in swing districts are released by party leaders to “vote against the bill” — because then they only need 50 votes + VP.
<
p>
someone like judd gregg in NH or bingaman in NM or webb in VA would want to play that game — vote for cloture, vote AGAINST the bill.
<
p>
overall, the bill is shockingly unpopular on both sides. rasmussen has it at 50 to 22% AGAINST.
<
p>
i believe a “yes” vote will hurt either clinton or obama in 2008, since both giuliani and fred thompson (and mitt for that matter) don’t have to vote.
The immigration bill co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy is so flawed that, not only is it destined to fail, but it should fail. But at least it is an attempt to solve a problem, irrespective of the fact that the problem is intractable. And irrespective of the fact that the problem is self-inflicted, because (as I have written here before) the US has intentionally caused the decimation of the Mexican and Central American economies so that the economic refugees are storming here.
<
p>
Given that , what would you propose in its stead? Build a wall? The Europeans have tried that, and they know it doesn’t work.
<
p>
BTW, As a dual citizen of Ireland and the US, I for one am of the school that one cannot be the servant of two masters. Select one and give up the other.
As I said elsewhere, creating a permanent underclass is a permanent solution to our temporary political circumstances. I am optimistic in two years’ time we’ll have a polity that is more willing to deal constructively with immigration — along the lines you suggest. I’m suggesting patience, and not knuckling under to right-wing talk radio hysteria.
<
p>
As to your other point, I am proud to be American and proud to be Irish. You don’t need a history lesson about their history of comity and leadership. As long as both countries follow and embody the democratic principles outlined in their constitutions, there is no conflict. And if the people of the US or Ireland choose to seriously deviate from those principles, I will happily withdraw from the community.
…you apparently don’t recognize the reference, or the analogy. I am firmly opposed to dual citizenship.
I went through four years of Catholic High School, where on occasion we read the Bible. I recognize the quote, just don’t think it applies. I’m fine with dual citizenship and encourage anybody who can obtain it to do so. I think it’s an appropriate response to a globalized world, and a dear improvement over “my country right or wrong”.
to the consequence of this bill in the event of a sudden decline in the economy ie the decline that ocurred during the Carter years?
<
p>
Who will bear the brunt of the cost of every possible expense of this bill? If well over 50% of American citizens are opposed to this should it become law? Or are we going to go down the “we know what’s best” road?
Just because you don’t agree with this bill doesn’t mean that the Kennedy has past his ‘Golden Age’ – he’s trying to get a bill passed which is what leaders do. Both sides are still so far apart on this one that it may be nothing can get passed which would be a real shame. This is an issue that the country needs to digest before finding common ground.
I think it’s a real reach to say the Golden Age is over — how about the minimum wage increase and his prescient and solid votes and speeches re: the Iraq War? I think the key question re: the immigration bill is “Would it be better to just put off any attempt at legislation and hope that we have better majorties in the Congress?” I think the problem with that is even many of the Dems elected recently like Jim Webb of VA are not liberals when it comes to immigration.”
… Paul Wellstone were still around to weigh in on this. I’d really be interested in what he would have had to say about this.