The Immigration Bill & Democrats

[Katana]

So the latest (and not particularly shocking) news is that the most recent immigration bill failed to gets sufficient votes in the Senate to move forward.

Ok. So this was a bill reportedly to be supported by Democrats in the Senate and the (obviously Republican) president.

However, the president is at an all time low approval-wise (roughly 26% in the most recent poll), and, according to recent polls, the majority of the American public (which surely includes both Republicans and Democrats) disapproves of this bill.

While I have become more, I suppose, "liberal" on many issues over the past few years, this is an area where my opinion appears to digress from that expressed by the apparent majority of Democrats in favor of this bill. Given the polls, I appear to be in line with the majority of folks in disapproving of this bill's approach, too.

So the Democrats have a president in favor of this bill, an American public who profoundly disapproves of the president, a public the majority of whom disapprove of this bill, yet the Democrats are pushing it forward.

In so many areas, again, I come from more of a Democratic perspective, but, in this issue, I clearly do not and, if polls are reflective of anything, neither do the bulk of other voters (Democrats & Republicans both).

It seems a strange approach for a party that one would think would like to distance itself from a largely-disliked president and one that might, as an extension of that, pay more attention to poll numbers.

Anyone else following me here?

Is gaining the hispanic vote (as some have put forth as the reason for the Democrats' supporting this measure) worth it?

Or do they have such an advantage at the next election that they can afford to disregard such large public disapproval of this bill?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Anyone else following me here?

Is gaining the hispanic vote (as some have put forth as the reason for the Democrats' supporting this measure) worth it?

Or do they have such an advantage at the next election that they can afford to disregard such large public disapproval of this bill?

I see where you are heading, I think.

If the Democrats end up throwing away the winning hand that they firmed up with the draw in the 2006 mid term elections, I'll probably end up with a concussion from slamming my head on the desk in disbelief.

DR

 

[Loss Leader]

I see where you are heading, I think.

If the Democrats end up throwing away the winning hand that they firmed up with the draw in the 2006 mid term elections, I'll probably end up with a concussion from slamming my head on the desk in disbelief.

DR

If anybody can snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, it's the Democrats.

 

[Katana]

If anybody can snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, it's the Democrats.

In all seriousness, I grew thinking that I was conservative, a Republican, whatever those things meant to me at the time largely due to the influence of my parents.

Since then, I have related more to the approach Democrats take on a number of issues (as have my parents, interestingly). However, I still consider myself a moderate, an independent, whatever those things mean to me today - evidently, a growing number of Americans at this point. For what it's worth, according to NPR, more Americans identify themselves as independents than ever before.

So, ok. The Democrats won them over during the last election, but, with this bill, it does seem that they risk losing them a bit. Whether whatever is lost will amount to anything during the next election remains to be seen, admittedly.

Or perhaps my views as a "moderate" aren't as moderate as I thought. What do other self-proclaimed moderates think about the immigration bill?

Actually, I'm curious to know what everyone thinks about the bill and the odd intersection between Republicans (via the president) and Democrats (via Congress) that it represents.

 

[SezMe]

I'm in your position, Katana. Why the Dems keep pushing this horrible idea escapes. For example, I generally am quite happy with my Rep (she voted against the original war authorization which took a lot of guts) but is one of those who keep pushing amnesty. I can't count the number of times I've written her....to no avail. Loss Leader is right - this is might give the Dems a big hurt in 08 depending on the stance of the Republican nominee.

 

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader is right - this is might give the Dems a big hurt in 08 depending on the stance of the Republican nominee.

Actually, I think that the issue is sufficiently complex that nobody is going to be able to make much political hay out of it next November.

"John Thomspon voted to give amnesty to illegal aliens."

"Tom Johnson voted against closing our boarders to illegal aliens and terrorists."

 

[ponderingturtle]

The problem is that Immigration needs to be dealt with, and for any party it will be a very divisive issue. This just does not fit along party lines, as both parties have as their base groups that disagree on this issue.

The democrats have the split in their base because ideological liberals and say unions are going to be at opposite ends on how easy it should be to immigrate.

The republicans have as their split base the nationalist ideas, and the farmer/business that depends on the labor that the immigrants are here for.

So the practical side and the ideological sides of both parties are split on this issue.

 

[Billdave2]

There are so many members of congress on both sides pushing this bill that it will end up being a push. As a conservative, I would love to see a bipartisan bill that started with controlling the borders, then figuring out a way to deal with the illegals that are already here. I don't have a problem with letting most of the ones here stay as long as it isn't blanket amnesty.

It isn't a perfect analogy, but I can't help thinking about being in a boat with a leak. The first thing you have to do is plug the leak, then you deal with the water that got in.

 

[The Painter]

the majority of the American public (which surely includes both Republicans and Democrats) disapproves of this bill

.

I believe that’s because people see it as just more rhetoric. We have laws already that are not enforced. What good are more laws that won’t be enforced?

 

[Bluegill]

There are so many members of congress on both sides pushing this bill that it will end up being a push. As a conservative, I would love to see a bipartisan bill that started with controlling the borders, then figuring out a way to deal with the illegals that are already here. I don't have a problem with letting most of the ones here stay as long as it isn't blanket amnesty.

It isn't a perfect analogy, but I can't help thinking about being in a boat with a leak. The first thing you have to do is plug the leak, then you deal with the water that got in.

Oh, that is so weird. Right before I read that post I thought of that metaphor, and the fact that you can only take it so far. I was imagining a politician: “The second step in the metaphor is, logically, to start baling—but this is where the metaphor falls apart. You don’t throw all these people back overboard. Even ignoring the humanitarian aspects of it, there are just too many of them. We fix the leak, but then we have this separate problem for which the boat metaphor won’t work. How do we deal with the ten million immigrants?”

On topic—I agree that the issue is too complex, too poorly understood, and to easily manipulated by pundits for anyone to forecast how it will aid or hinder the Democrats. On some issues, party divisions don’t really count for a lot.

 

[Billdave2]

Oh, that is so weird. Right before I read that post I thought of that metaphor, and the fact that you can only take it so far. I was imagining a politician: “The second step in the metaphor is, logically, to start baling—but this is where the metaphor falls apart. You don’t throw all these people back overboard. Even ignoring the humanitarian aspects of it, there are just too many of them. We fix the leak, but then we have this separate problem for which the boat metaphor won’t work. How do we deal with the ten million immigrants?”

On topic—I agree that the issue is too complex, too poorly understood, and to easily manipulated by pundits for anyone to forecast how it will aid or hinder the Democrats. On some issues, party divisions don’t really count for a lot.

I think you have to think of the bailing the water as not throwing all the illegals here out but how to you transition them to legal status. I think we would have to deport any illegals that are dangerous criminals, but we should be able to work some solution for the rest that is fair and satisfies the desire that it not be a pure amnesty. What we need is a modern day Henry Clay to come in and be the "Great Compromiser" as opposed to the greatly compromised (in both parties)

 

[TragicMonkey]

The problem is that Immigration needs to be dealt with

It's a very divisive issue. I already disagree right here. I think the fuss about immigration now is the same fuss Americans threw about immigration all the previous times we threw a fuss about immigration--a distraction from much larger and more important problems. We have a war going on. Whether you're for or against that war, you ought at least pay more attention to how it's going and not get sidetracked with hotbutton campaigny issues. What about immigration is more problematic now than it was five years ago? Ten years ago? Twenty years ago? Mountains from molehills.

 

[SezMe]

"Tom Johnson voted against closing our boarders to illegal aliens and terrorists."

Interesting typo.

 

[SezMe]

We have laws already that are not enforced. What good are more laws that won’t be enforced?

How do we deal with the ten million immigrants?”

I think Painter has pointed out the solution. We don't deal with the immigrants, we deal with the employers of illegals. If there were weekly "film at eleven" stories showing CEOs being hauled off to jail, the job market for illegals would dry up. Without a reason to be here, most would end up returning back to their home country. IOW, let the job market deal with illegals, not the government.

 

[Loss Leader]

I think Painter has pointed out the solution. We don't deal with the immigrants, we deal with the employers of illegals. If there were weekly "film at eleven" stories showing CEOs being hauled off to jail, the job market for illegals would dry up. Without a reason to be here, most would end up returning back to their home country. IOW, let the job market deal with illegals, not the government.

If Americans want to stop the employment of illegal aliens, that's fine. But I think that we should first understand what that means. The American economy (and the world economy at large) is built at least partially on a foundation of grey market economy. The cost of our meat and produce will increase along with the cost of construction. These undergird the prices of many items in our lives. The average American may want illegals out (or in and paid on the books) but is the average American willing to see a 20% or more increase in her food bill? An increase in rent and in the cost of all services which factor in the rent being paid (like hairstyling, legal services and more)?

I don't believe the average voter even understands the issues involved, let alone has an opinion about them. Heck, I don't even have an opinion about them.

There's a lot to be said for the status quo: At least it's not worse than we were doing before.

 

[Solitaire]

If Americans want to stop the employment of illegal aliens, that's fine. But I think that we should first understand what that means. The American economy (and the world economy at large) is built at least partially on a foundation of grey market economy. The cost of our meat and produce will increase along with the cost of construction. These undergird the prices of many items in our lives. The average American may want illegals out (or in and paid on the books) but is the average American willing to see a 20% or more increase in her food bill? An increase in rent and in the cost of all services which factor in the rent being paid (like hairstyling, legal services and more)?

I don't believe the average voter even understands the issues involved, let alone has an opinion about them. Heck, I don't even have an opinion about them.

There's a lot to be said for the status quo: At least it's not worse than we were doing before.

Even worse, there ain't no free lunch. The cost of health care would fall as the uninsured stop using the emergency rooms. The schools would have more money per pupil as illegals move out. The cost of government would fall as services in general get less used. Heck even credit card rates would fall from 30% a year, down to 15% a year as the most valuable customers leave:

"Davis is supporting a bill that would make it illegal for banks to issue credit cards to anyone who cannot produce a photo ID, a valid Social Security number, or a passport. ... The idea behind the bill is that illegal default on credit card payments at an extraordinary rate, and that since FDIC protection is in place, the taxpayers end up footing the bill." - The Business Journal, April 2007, Page 14, www.bjournal.com

Don't ask about the law of unintended consequences - it's even more dismal.

 

[BPSCG]

Last fall, we kept hearing how the Dems were going to govern once they took over Congress.

Have they done anything to help fight terrorism? No, but they're issuing subpoenas to the White House to find out where it might have overstepped, and sent the Speaker of the House to chat with the president of Syria.

Have they done anything that would lessen our dependence on foreign oil? No, but they've grandstanded plenty about supposed price gouging.

Have they done anything about illegal immigration? No.

Have they done anything to deal with the coming catastrophic Social Security and Medicare meltdowns? No.

Have they voted themselves a pay raise after damning the Republicans for voting themselves one last year?

 

[Atlas]

One thing this crazy debate informed me of was that illegally crossing into the US is nothing more than a misdemeanor. That seemed odd to me that legislation wasn't introduced by somebody to make it stiffer during this time of war.

There is so much left unsaid - like it can't be said. Perhaps the Kennedy bill was designed to get illegals registered. A laudable goal in my opinion and one that the Z-visa would go a long way toward. I happen to hate the idea of the Z-visa however, in the way that it was designed.

The idea that Congress was diminishing the 870 mile fence that has already been made into law down to a 370 mile fence seemed kinda stupid. We either need a fence or we don't. In 6 months we have built 11 miles of fence. At 22 miles per year it's going to take a long time to build that thing no matter what the length. Clearly, their hearts are not in it.

One thing we insisted on when we dealt with the Soviets was verifiability. If Congress would have said we know that we often have 10,000 illegals crossing in a week and until we can cut that number to 100 or less we can't tell the people we're solving the problem or we are liars - well, that would be a start.

I do think this is mostly a Mexican/Latin American problem - that is, I think foreign governments and even al Queda don't have real problems getting their operatives onto our soil - but I also think that an awfully lot of Americans think that if it's so easy for Mexicans to enter our Government is NOT serious about our safety.

The issue of cheap labor seems to be the rallying cry for allowing illegals in. The humanitarian issues are paramount when it comes to kicking them out. But we shoot ourselves in the foot both ways.

No one has put a number on the true cost of this kind of cheap labor. It must include medical, education, foodstamp and other welfare plus all the crime. There are some jails with a 25% illegal population. LA gangs contain illegals. They go through our courts incurring costs, they are deported, some 630,000 were scheduled for it but are hiding from deportation authorities. We have to track them down. It might have been cheaper to subsidize American farm workers $5 an hour on top of what the farmer paid.

Sanctuary cities and "catch and release" programs just exacerbate the problems and of our distrust that our government is acting in our best interest.

Anyway, these comprehensive bills are such a load. Reid added 300 pages on Tuesday. I couldn't figure out what the real goal was. Do we want the 12 million unskilled foreigners to bring their uneducated families in and overburden our medical and welfare systems even more? Do we want to stop the invasion from the south? Or was it about insuring millions of voters for one party or another.

I sure thought Bush was sincere in this. I couldn't figure out why. I couldn't understand why he wasn't moving to close our southern border after 9-11. Maybe not a fence but more border cops. Why even have a Homeland Security department when such an egregious invasion is winked at and sometimes seemingly encouraged?

 

[Atlas]

... Have they voted themselves a pay raise after damning the Republicans for voting themselves one last year?

To be fair, BPSCG... work is always harder when you don't know what you're doing. It might even be worth it to all Americans to reward the continued fecklessness of the Dems - anything to keep them from actually enacting their vision into law.

If only there was some responsible alternative.

 

[SezMe]

No one has put a number on the true cost of this kind of cheap labor.

Not so. Just google "cost" and "illegal immigrants" and you'll find pages and pages of such studies.