Dead Again

I can't say I'm all that surprised that the immigration bill can't pass the Senate. Demographically speaking, I think I'm about as close to being the core constituency for this bill as you can get without being either an illegal immigrant or someone whose business model depends on the employment of illegal immigrants, and I'm not all that broken up about what's gone down.

Pro-bill liberal groups were essentially reduced to arguing that the Senate just needed to pass something called "comprehensive immigration reform" so that the conference committee could change it around in a couple of dozen ways. That may well have been the correct calculation, but it's not the kind of thing that gets people calling their senator and urging him to vote for the bill.

Comments

MY,
Take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH2QB7p7drQ

If you haven't already. Did Bush just go 12 rounds with Darth Vader while having both his hands tied behind his back? Or is he crapping his pants watching his presidency implode?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 28, 2007 1:35 PM

This strikes me as a huge win for the Democrats. The bill debate was essentially held between factions of the GOP, who proceeded to tear each other apart in ways not quickly repairable (see: the talk-radio vs. Trent Lott and others brawl).

Sure, most Dems probably wanted the thing to pass, but no one (save Kennedy, who is a political being unto himself) really seemed to care enough to go to the mat. The Democrats got the media write-ups about being in favor of the bill, and the Republicans will bear pretty much the entire responsibility for its defeat. Bush comes out weaker than he used to be, and perhaps about to lose the 26% of the country that used to support him no matter what; McCain is deader in the water than he used to be, and the only way for a GOP candidate to play this issue successfully is to appeal to the Tancredo wing of the party, which is hard to do without appearing to be somewhat similar to Tom Tancredo.

From a policy standpoint, the failure of the bill seems like a small net-good; it seems that most of the immigration problems we have could probably just be left to the status quo, with some more enforcement and marginal fixes to the naturalization process--we didn't need a guest worker program, nor a 1,000+ mile border wall. No one on blog threads cares about policy though, so whatever.

Posted by Ben | June 28, 2007 1:47 PM

I am not as sanguine as Ben is about this being a win for the Dems. Big Media Matt is normally quite distinct from most of his Big Media colleagues (in a good way), but as MY points out, media types (like him) are pretty close to the core constituency for this bill ... they did want it to pass ... and they might just blame Harry Reid for not shepherding it through very well.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to appear "objective" and "balanced", the media will seek out the "other side" and give a lot of air time, etc., to paleo-cons, et al.

So the media is likely to be balancing Reid bashing with paleo-con propaganda.

I fail to see that this'll be a net good for the Democrats.

Posted by DAS | June 28, 2007 2:00 PM

I fail to see that this'll be a net good for the Democrats.

I suspect the real hard core anti immigrant crowd probably doesn't vote a whole lot for democrats, and to the extent they do probably are less likely to be single-issue voters.

It's not going to help the republican cause to have these voters even louder and angrier in 2008.

Posted by Rob | June 28, 2007 2:14 PM

probably are less likely to be single-issue voters.

to expand on my point, I think the anti-immigrant democrats are more likely to be pro-labor folks who aren't going to go racing over to the republicans anytime soon. The failure of the immigration bill is a mixed bag for them anyhow.

The republicans have a much more difficult juggling act as they are dependent on getting $$ from pro-immigration interests while getting votes from anti-immigrant social conservatives. As long as this debate festers, it'll hurt them. It also hurts them among hispanic voters who'll see lots of loud Tancredo types disparaging their culture/ethnicity/what have you.

Posted by Rob | June 28, 2007 2:21 PM

Yeah this bill was a boon for the Democrats. Republicans tore eachother apart over it, despite not even having a majority in congress, John McCain basically lost his presidential bid, and for what? Nothing at all.

The only thing that irritates me is Democratic candidates, including Obama(!?) who feel the need to pander to the nativist factions and talk about boarder security, etc. It's really obnoxious.

The status quo, frankly, is fine. Improvements could be made to protect illegals from exploitation, but those things could be done incrementally and probably wouldn't be filibustered.

Posted by Chad Okere | June 28, 2007 2:25 PM

It seemed to me that the entire bill was built on a fantasy that we'll enact all these changes and enhanced security, and we'll stop getting so many illegal immigrants. That last part simply isn't true, and anyone who tied their reputation to a bill that passes while immigration continues to rise, will simply sink themselves.

I'm hopeful a larger Dem Senate and a Dem President in 2009 will write a much better bill.

Posted by Tony V | June 28, 2007 2:26 PM

Bush and Bush's brain obviously have their imperfections, but word is they calculated that the Hispanic vote will grow and grow and importance and that support for/passage of an immigration bill was vital to grabbing a decent share of that vote for the Republicans. On this I suspect they calculated correctly. (And I shouldn't deny either that here politics coincided with conviction on the part of the president.)

Now the bill is dead, killed by four fifths of the Senate Republicans. The Democrats get credit with the Hispanics, and don't have to bear blame for any consequences (including changes perceived to be for the worse) of the bill.

No wonder the president looks so downcast and forlorn, even on the verge of tears, in his statement. His ebullience and elan in the teeth of plain evidence his previous six years have brought utter failure have always struck me as showing remarkable resilience. But apparently he staked a lot on this bill, and seeing its failing to secure even a majority has made it plain even to him that except for what he can veto he will be sidelined for the remainder of his term, rendered irrelevant and incapable of any recovery of his reputation, able only to lose on what he cares about and then change the subject to other issues where he'll also be able to play only on the periphery.

To think that so pathetic a creature could have accomplished so much--bloating executive power at the expense of the rule of law, shredding civil liberties at the expense of the preservation of individual rights, advancing the cause of jihadism at the expense of our security. How much harm will a presidency even in this weakened state still prove capable wreaking upon us?

Posted by Valedictorian | June 28, 2007 2:29 PM

Too little real 'good' in the bill, and way too much 'bad'.

If by miracle the bill passed the Senate this time, it would never have passed after the House came up with their version, and the conference committee attempted a 'compromise'.

So, I'm glad this wicked witch is dead for now. Like all zombie's, it will arise again after the 08 elections, and maybe something sensible might pass.

Meantime: single issue amendments to other bills might have a chance. Perhaps there might be a veto-proof majority for much increased employer enforcement - which really is the key, if there is a key, to slowing the rate of border-crossing for jobs.

Killing the temporary worker program is a great step toward keeping us from a two-tier society.

And, no matter how little good might have been in the bill, seeing Bush crushed so publicly is the best thing that's happened this year.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | June 28, 2007 3:00 PM

"advancing the cause of jihadism at the expense of our security"

Please explain. As Bush has repeatedly said, we need to "bring these people out of the shadows" and recoginze that 12 million fellow humans are doing tough jobs helping the American economy run, all the while they are more easily exploitable because of their status as illegal immigrants. Because it didn't pass they will remain stuck in that vulnerable position. Good job Congress.

Progressives should really work to get rid of the filibuster. Without it, immigration reform and the Employee Free Choice Act [ECFA] would have passed. It was used successfully against New Deal and civil rights laws. Without the filibuster, you'd have 12 million voters who'd probably vote with Democrats.

Posted by Peter K. | June 28, 2007 3:03 PM

Just thought I would chime in as the poster-child for Rob's comments above. I didn't like the bill coming from a pro-labor standpoint. I hate the guest worker idea and worry that like any enforcement issue (as the current Justice Dept reveals in spades) stopping people from hiring illegal labor is only as strong as the will of the people actually running the show. This administration would never focus on employer sanctions and I don't see any of the Dem contenders pushing it either. The status quo is best until our representatives wean themselves off the corporate teat.

That said, even if the Democrats passed an amnesty-only bill that just make another 12 million un- and underemployed Americans while businesses just carted in another 12 million illegal workers, I would never vote Republican. I just hope that others like me don't fall victim to this single issue (now that its dead it seems the carcass will likely rot in the GOP's house) and decide to vote a third party candidate.

Posted by Ricky | June 28, 2007 3:58 PM

Why is the first reaction of so many lefties here to comment on the supposed political effects of the death of this bill? Why not spend more time thinking about what policies are best for the country and let the political chips fall where they may?

You should be happy this bill failed because it was, on the whole, bad for this country. By not demonstrably securing the border first, it would have attracted tens of millions more unskilled immigrants looking for a third amnesty. As every economist acknowledges, these unskilled immigrants would have cost this country far more in government benefits than they would have paid in taxes. Considering the difficulties we have already had assimilating recent waves of unskilled immigrants to American norms of academic and educational achievement, another wave would have only exacerbated these societal problems.

Both righties who favor lower taxes and lefties who favor more social spending on poor Americans are served by not importing tens of millions more poor people.

Posted by Fred | June 28, 2007 4:29 PM

Too little real 'good' in the bill, and way too much 'bad'.

Boy, Jimmy, aint' *that* the truth! The big argument for the bill was,"Well, yeah, we know it's a piece of shit, but we won't get another chance until after the election.".
They wait twenty years and do nothing and now it's a do or die? Paleeeze....good riddance to bad garbage.
And Kennedy's plea about the security of the nation is crap. If he and Bush want security, all they need to do is enforce the laws we currently have against the large packing plants and others who knowingly employ illegal aliens as well as detain the aliens themselves. They have the tools. Fuck Kennedy and fuck Bush for trying to ram this down the throats of Americans when only 22% want it.

Posted by Fred Jones | June 28, 2007 4:32 PM

Why is the first reaction of so many lefties here to comment on the supposed political effects of the death of this bill? Why not spend more time thinking about what policies are best for the country and let the political chips fall where they may?

Well, Fred, it's because the welfare of the nation is secondary to the consolidation of political power to them.

Both righties who favor lower taxes and lefties who favor more social spending on poor Americans are served by not importing tens of millions more poor people.

Agreed. However, the 'progressives' don't favor Americans. They see little distinction between being a citizen and non-citizen. It should be Americans first, even with them, but it's not. They do not speak in terms about what's good for Americans.

Posted by Fred Jones | June 28, 2007 4:41 PM

Why is the first reaction of so many lefties here to comment on the supposed political effects of the death of this bill? Why not spend more time thinking about what policies are best for the country and let the political chips fall where they may?

What thread are you reading? Almost all of the discussion here has focused on the policy and not the politics. That said, the politics is also an important and interesting consideration (he said, launching into a discussion of the politics).

What's interesting is that most of the media play of the defeat of the immigration has fallen under the headline of "Senate defeats immigration reform," as opposed to the more accurate "Senate Republicans block President's immigration bill". It is actually remarkably easy for the media to play this as if Democrats were somehow blocking important legislation. And since the media seemed to be generally in favor of this bill, I expect that this is how we'll see this play out.

I'm not willing to see this as a win for the Democrats yet, and saying it is is rather bizarre, given that most Democrats (including Hillary and Obama) supported the bill. I expect the Broder crowd will chime in soon with a lot of sad shaking of their heads and tut-tutting that partisan politics once again got in the way of "doing something". As if the political discussion of what exactly needs to be done is of no merit.

My guess is that this plays as a big win for the nativist wing of the Republican party. They defeated this bill more than anyone. For all the wrong reasons they did the right thing and they'll reap the spoils from it if anyone does.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 28, 2007 4:59 PM

You should be happy this bill failed because it was, on the whole, bad for this country. By not demonstrably securing the border first, it would have attracted tens of millions more unskilled immigrants looking for a third amnesty. As every economist acknowledges, these unskilled immigrants would have cost this country far more in government benefits than they would have paid in taxes.

I think there are a couple of counter points to this:1

1) Securing the border - if you live in a border state, you would know that this concept is borderline fantasy. It can be done, yes, but only at an enormous cost. Building a fence & enforcing employer sanctions aren't cheap to do. I personally would prefer an honest discussion 1st about what is the optimal level of illegal immigration which would then lead to an assessment of how much more $$ should be spent on reducing this.

2) Economic impact - I haven't personally studied this but I struggle with the conclusion that immigration is a economic negative for the country. I can buy an argument that the 1st generation of immigrants is a net loss but that excludes subsequent generations, each of whom will have higher earning potential. There's a distinct conversation about the costs (largely environmental) from overpopulation but I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that immigration is a net loss from an analysis that only looks at the 1st generation.

Posted by Rob | June 28, 2007 5:25 PM

What Fred Jones said.

Peter K. says: 12 million fellow humans are doing tough jobs helping the American economy run, all the while they are more easily exploitable because of their status as illegal immigrants.

It's at times like these where I think of the Simpsons ep with Homer crying about his pet lobster... while he's eating him.

If "progressives" really want to avoid such exploitation, they only have two choices and none others: a) pass out citizenships at the border, or b) strictly enforce our laws.

The fact that most of them consistently choose the middle ground - complaining about abuses while taking steps to support the abuses - reveals them to be as corrupt as the cheap labor WSJ crowd.

Posted by TLB | June 28, 2007 5:37 PM

There's hardly any policy discussed. The thread's focus is on who this helps or hurts. And since harming/defeating W is the primary focus of so many on the left, that is what they hope the result will be. Media included.

The bill died because very few people believed that government would enforce the border or control the number or rate of immigrants. And why would we? Consecutive administrations (D and R) and 10 consecutive congresses have shown they are unable or unwilling to enforce the laws. This is just another law they would not enforce. Empty promises. How dumb do they think we are?

Enforce the border first, deport the criminal element, and then work to assimilate the rest. We know this bill would have legalized 12 million without addressing the problem-- more coming in illegally.

And on politics-- support of this bill/amnesty is not a winning position for D's. Out here in the hinterlands, even with our 2 D senators and D governor and going D for president ever since Reagan, there is a strong opposition to this bill that goes far beyong ideological bounds.

Posted by BeerHere | June 28, 2007 5:39 PM

Anyone remember the New Deal Democratic Party (RIP 1932-1968), you know, the one that actually gave a crap about working people? What was our immigration policy like during that era? (Hint: nothing like what it's been since).

I guess now we have 2 republican parties seeing as how so many of today's democrats were so eager to endorse the immigration policies of BushCo and its media sock puppet, the WSJ.

Posted by kafka | June 28, 2007 6:13 PM

it seems that most of the immigration problems we have could probably just be left to the status quo, with some more enforcement and marginal fixes to the naturalization process

That's because you're not an immigrant. The bureaucracy remains underfunded, demoralised and forced to deal with a mishmash of legislative cruft, much of it obsolescent or done for electoral grandstanding.

That said, this was a shitty bill, and the 'debate' on it just allowed some of the nastiest nativist bits of the GOP to bear their collective rears. Two more years of a broken system is marginally better than two years of hating on immigrants, not least because Loud Obbs will have to find a new piñata to bash.

And perhaps Wack O'Kelly may have finally pissed himself to death from all the times he sees a brown person and thinks the insurgencia has begun.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 28, 2007 6:17 PM

Today, the special interests lost and the public won.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 28, 2007 6:46 PM

What was our immigration policy like during that era? (Hint: nothing like what it's been since).

I was under the impression that the borders have gotten tougher to cross since then & the economic disparity between the US & Latin America has become much more pronounced as Latin American economies were fairly stagnant while wealth in the US increased substantially.

My own opinion is that the economic imbalance is putting an enormous strain on the southern border - unless that economic balance is mitigated, then immigration is going to continue to be a source of pain. More enforcement would likely increase the cost of labor in the US, thus decreasing the economic risks of offshoring. I'm personally glad that the immigration bill failed if only because it's been pushed largely by a very angry group of people who steadfastly believe in easy answers to difficult questions. I don't think there's an easy or pleasant answer to this.

Posted by Rob | June 28, 2007 6:50 PM

Rob Mac:

"What's interesting is that most of the media play of the defeat of the immigration has fallen under the headline of "Senate defeats immigration reform," as opposed to the more accurate "Senate Republicans block President's immigration bill"."

Really? I didn't have to look further than my Yahoo! homepage for this article: Senate hands Bush major defeat on immigration

"My guess is that this plays as a big win for the nativist wing of the Republican party."

One of the positive legacies of this failed attempt to ram through the immigration bill will be that spurious claims of "nativism", "bigotry", and "racism" have lost their power to intimidate people. When you find yourself parroting Lindsey Graham in your characterization of the 80% of the GOP that opposed this p.o.s. bill, you must realize how lame these charges sound.

Rob:

"Securing the border - if you live in a border state, you would know that this concept is borderline fantasy"

"Borderline fantasy" would be to imagine that all prospective migrants have a Kitty Pride-like ability to walk through walls and fences. As the success of fences like the one south of San Diego in reducing illegal crossings demonstrates, illegal migrants have just as much difficulty walking through solid barriers as the rest of us. Considering that A) fences have reduced illegal crossings where they have been built, and B) Illegals flock to vast stretches of the border where there are no fences, it seems obvious that building fences there would reduce illegal immigration.

"Economic impact - I haven't personally studied this but I struggle with the conclusion that immigration is a economic negative for the country."

People who have studied it agree that unskilled immigration (immigrants with less than a high school education) is an economic negative for America, since unskilled immigrants, on average, consume more in government services than they pay in taxes.

"I can buy an argument that the 1st generation of immigrants is a net loss but that excludes subsequent generations, each of whom will have higher earning potential."

The history of unskilled immigrants from Mexico has not been encouraging on this front: 41% of fourth (!) generation Mexican Americans have been high school dropouts, and their income potential has lagged that of non-Mexican Americans. Some analysts believe that although the children of unskilled immigrants tend to be net fiscal drains on society, their grandchildren might be positive contributers. If there's a compelling economic argument for importing more poor people with 4th grade educations into America, I haven't seen it.

"More enforcement would likely increase the cost of labor in the US, thus decreasing the economic risks of offshoring."

Not really: most of the jobs performed by illegal immigrants here -- e.g., landscaping, construction, restaurant dish washing, etc. -- aren't at risk of outsourcing.

Posted by Fred | June 28, 2007 7:53 PM

Considering that A) fences have reduced illegal crossings where they have been built, and B) Illegals flock to vast stretches of the border where there are no fences, it seems obvious that building fences there would reduce illegal immigration.

Once you start work on that fence right down the middle of the Rio Grande, Freddy, you can talk.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 28, 2007 11:51 PM

"Borderline fantasy" would be to imagine that all prospective migrants have a Kitty Pride-like ability to walk through walls and fences. As the success of fences like the one south of San Diego in reducing illegal crossings demonstrates, illegal migrants have just as much difficulty walking through solid barriers as the rest of us.

Wow! You sure demolished that strawman.. Nice work!

Posted by fp | June 28, 2007 11:57 PM

The status quo, frankly, is fine. Improvements could be made to protect illegals from exploitation, but those things could be done incrementally and probably wouldn't be filibustered.

Wrong, and I’ll side with pseudonymous in nc here, you say that only because . . .

. . . you're not an immigrant. The bureaucracy remains underfunded, demoralised and forced to deal with a mishmash of legislative cruft, much of it obsolescent or done for electoral grandstanding.

For out-of-status immigrants, the status quo is terrifying, dehumanizing, and exhausting. For them, two years can feel like an eternity. Incremental changes won’t be possible until at least 2009 under a solid Democratic majority. In the meantime, people will lose their jobs, families will be split as breadwinners are deported, and thousands of immigrants having committed no criminal offense will be detained indefinitely Gitmo-style.

This is only tolerable if it's not you or someone you care about.

Posted by yave begnet | June 29, 2007 12:26 AM

anyone who tied their reputation to a bill that passes while immigration continues to rise, will simply sink themselves.

You’ve been drinking the restrictionist Crystal Lite again. Polls showed most Americans supported the main planks of the bill, and you’re discounting the clout of the business and Latino communities.

Killing the temporary worker program is a great step toward keeping us from a two-tier society.

In case you haven’t noticed, the current situation is not so hot, with de facto segregation between illegal immigrants—who can be summarily imprisoned and deported, fired, or intimidated, coerced, and exploited in all manner of ways—and the rest of us. In some ways, it’s much worse than Jim Crow. Thank goodness we haven’t devolved into a two-tier society—that would truly be awful.

Posted by yave begnet | June 29, 2007 12:29 AM

For out-of-status immigrants, the status quo is terrifying, dehumanizing, and exhausting

Let me correct that for you:

For out-of-status immigrants - the vast majority of whom willingly decided to come or remain here illegally despite knowing of all the downsides - the status quo is terrifying, dehumanizing, and exhausting. And, that makes me wonder why they'd choose this route instead of remaining in their own countries and pushing for reforms. And, it also makes me look askance at all those "liberals" who - as TLB pointed out above - in effect support such abuses at the same time as they decry them.

There, all better.

Posted by TLB | June 29, 2007 2:30 AM

Yave Begnet:

"For out-of-status immigrants, the status quo is terrifying, dehumanizing, and exhausting... In some ways, it’s much worse than Jim Crow."

First, what is an "out-of-status" immigrant? That's a better euphemism than the ludicrous "undocumented" (since most illegal immigrants do have documents, albeit fake ones), but why can't you just speak plainly? An immigrant who is here illegally is an illegal immigrant.

Second, where do you get this "terrifying, dehumanizing..." stuff? Are you channeling the id of illegals like John Edwards channeled the spirit of a dead fetus at one of his lawsuits against an obstetrician? My town is full of illegal aliens. I don't know if it's officially a "sanctuary city" like New York, L.A. and other, bigger cities are, but for all intents and purposes it is. Illegal aliens work out in my gym (it's a sketchy gym -- $30 per month). In a few local restaurants they have graduated from busboy to waiter. They wait on a local highway in broad daylight, unmolested, for day labor. They get paid significantly more than minimum wage (anecdotal evidence suggests $10+ per hour) There are three or four stores on our Main Street where they can get a variety of services: fake IDs, phone cards to call home, money-wiring, shipping services, etc. The only thing my local illegals can't do is drive, since NJ has Real ID licenses, so every restaurant has a half dozen mountain bikes in the back. In short, they seem fairly comfortable here.

Third, instead of indulging in false nostalgia for the civil rights struggle against Jim Crow, why not stop dicking over today's black people by trying to import tens of millions more poor people to compete with them for jobs, lower their wages, and compete with them for social services?

Fourth, you don't need to wait for Dems for incremental changes: those changes are already happening, though not in the direction you might like. Over a thousand local laws have been passed nationwide cracking down on businesses that hire illegal aliens, landlords who rent to them, etc. This trend will continue. Also, pressure will grow on the federal government to start enforcing the laws it already passed, for example, to build the ~800 miles of fences on the border with Mexico.

Posted by Fred | June 29, 2007 2:32 AM

that makes me wonder why they'd choose this route instead of remaining in their own countries and pushing for reforms.

The Mexicans and Central Americans who come here typically have few employment options at home and little economic or political power there. That is why they pay coyotes their savings to brave deserts, drug traffickers, and trigger-happy border agents to come live in the shadows to do menial work here.

it also makes me look askance at all those "liberals" who - as TLB pointed out above - in effect support such abuses at the same time as they decry them.

As a “liberal”, I don’t support maintaining a permanent underclass, but I do decry abuse of that underclass. I support liberalization of immigration laws—making them more straightforward, transparent, and most of all, allowing more immigrants to gain legal status to do the work that American businesses are paying them to do. I fail to see the contradiction.

Posted by yave begnet | June 29, 2007 9:05 AM

If "progressives" really want to avoid such exploitation, they only have two choices and none others: a) pass out citizenships at the border, or b) strictly enforce our laws.

Er, no. They could, rather than "pass out citizenship at the border" pass out work permits at the border -- ideally convertible to green cards (and, eventually, passports) based upon a good record and the rule of law. They could, in other words, change the law. And they will. Perhaps in 2009. When they have not only majorities in both houses but the executive branch as well. Because every person who's honest with himself knows the immigration laws as currently written cannot be adequately enforced -- at least not absent a titanic shift to the right in the country's political culture. But of course the shift we're now seeing is to the left. And with the big "fuck you" the GOP just gave (despite W's frantic efforts to the contrary) 40 million Americans (and the "illegal" parents of many millions more), that shift to the left is going to become more pronounced.

Posted by Jasper | June 29, 2007 9:30 AM

Considering that A) fences have reduced illegal crossings where they have been built, and B) Illegals flock to vast stretches of the border where there are no fences, it seems obvious that building fences there would reduce illegal immigration.

This relies on the assumption that the only avenue for entrance is on foot. It's been my understanding that there's been a thriving coyote business on the Mexican side of the border for ages and that a substantial number of immigrants, especially those from southern Mexico & Central America pay a substantial amount of money and endure substantial hardships in order to cross. If you build an impenetrable border fence but don't do anything about the cross border economic tension, you won't fix the problem. You may reduce the number of immigrants coming into the country, but I think you're out of your mind if you don't think they'll find another way.

Think 'War on Drugs.' That's worked out really well, hasn't it?

Posted by Rob | June 29, 2007 11:29 AM

My last comment didn’t go through—let me try again.

what is an "out-of-status" immigrant?

That is the term USCIS uses to describe what are popularly known as “illegal immigrants”. It’s the government’s euphemism, not mine.

My town is full of illegal aliens. . . . The only thing my local illegals can't do is drive . . . In short, they seem fairly comfortable here.

That is, until they get locked up and deported, or locked up and left to rot indefinitely with inadequate medical care (62 have died in custody since 2004). Or threatened to be reported to ICE if they complain about anything at work or have a disagreement with a citizen. Sounds like a picnic.

why not stop dicking over today's black people by trying to import tens of millions more poor people to compete with them for jobs, lower their wages, and compete with them for social services?

Your concern for the welfare of African-Americans is touching. However, many of “today’s black people” are actually immigrants from Africa, Latin America, or the Caribbean. Make the class argument if you wish, but your argument reminds me of the neocon chestnut “if you really cared about Middle Easterners, you’d be on board with bombing Iraq.”

you don't need to wait for Dems for incremental changes: those changes are already happening, though not in the direction you might like.

With that I am in complete agreement.

Posted by yave begnet | June 29, 2007 12:48 PM