The Sun'll Go Down In Five Years

Aha! Crucial immigration developments missing from my morning paper. Ezra Klein says:

But last night, after the papers went to bed, the good guys won one too: Byron Dorgan's amendment to sunset the guest worker program after five years, which had earlier gone down on a 48-49 vote, passed, on a 49-48 vote. The flips, which mainly came on the right, were weird: Jim Bunning went from no to yes, Tom Coburn went from yes to no, Jim DeMint went from no to yes, Chris Dodd went from abstention to support, Elizabeth Dole went from no to yes, Mike Enzi went from no to yes, etc. This is rather important, as one of the question with the bill is whether a better -- or possibly shorter -- guest worker program crafted in conference with the House can survive the final vote. This is evidence that, particularly on the Republican side, it can.

Sounds good to me.

Comments

We'll know in a matter of minutes, but I believe Ezra has this one completely wrong.

The Dorgan amendment was a poison pill that is going to scuttle the whole bill, which explains the shifting positions of the wingnuts on the amendment.

If the bill gets cloture, then I obviously don't know what I'm talking about.

-----

What I'm discussing has nothing to do with the policy merits of the Dorgan amendment, which are indeed positive.

Posted by Petey | June 7, 2007 11:52 AM

And might I suggest you need a better morning paper...

Posted by Petey | June 7, 2007 12:01 PM

Petey is right, this is a poison pill. Good news for opponents of the bill (like me).

Posted by Zagnut | June 7, 2007 12:03 PM

The only "good guys" are those who oppose this bill.

Fun things MattY can think about: Mexico recently said they had been in "permanent communication with distinct actors in the debate", and Mexico has a great deal of PoliticalPower in the U.S. (MattY can educate himself on this part of the issue by reading this: tinyurl.com/8u2jm . He can also look into the indirect links that that government has to various U.S. non-profits and Democratic politicians. Some - but not all - of those are listed here: tinyurl.com/ygbclj)

Won't any kind of bill increase Mexico's PoliticalPower inside the U.S.? Does MattY think it's OK for a foreign government to have such influence inside our country and have such an impact on our immigration system? If not, what does he intend to do to counteract it?

If a proponent of these type of bills isn't willing to consider all the downsides and provide answers to objections, should we trust what they say? Even used car salesmen are willing to answer objections, but not those who promote such bills.

Posted by Help is on the way | June 7, 2007 1:04 PM

If the Israelis run our military and the Saudis run our energy policy, why shouldn't the Mexicans be allowed to control immigration? Look, we give everyone a turn at the wheel.

Posted by Steve | June 7, 2007 1:12 PM

My favorite thing about the immigration trolls - after their unfounded speculation - is their use of Capitalization and UnexpectedSpacingDecisions to increase the force of their message.

I'mConvinced!

Posted by DivGuy | June 7, 2007 1:24 PM

Can someone explain, briefly, why the sunset provision is a "poison pill?" That is, why would anyone support this clunker with a permanent guest-worker program, yet be able to stomach a sunset provision?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 7, 2007 1:53 PM

their use of Capitalization and UnexpectedSpacingDecisions to increase the force of their message.

Ah, that's because piss-stained ladder-pulling Know-Nothing Wack O' either cuts and pastes his blogwhoring diatribes from a personal Wiki, or uses WikiCaps in order to track said blogwhores through identifiable search terms.

What's curious is that Wack O' still doesn't realise that no-one clicks on his concealed links or visits his shitty site precisely because he prostitutes it so much around the web, and as such, is no different from the promoters of pharmaceuticals and casinos. Desperation really doesn't sell.

As for influencing another country's immigration policy? Well, politicians on both sides of the aisle seem content with PAN maintaining its hold on the Mexican presidency, and all that entails. Perhaps the Kelly Gang might consider campaigning for AMLO?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 7, 2007 2:04 PM

Big business is using legal and illegal third-world immigration to drive down American wages.

The marriage of big business and multiculturalism is the worst thing ever to happen to the American worker. Liberals can side with big business and use multiculturalism to appease their conscience.

I know so many people now who are making less money because of legal and illegal immigration, and not only in lower-paying fields, but also in nursing, engineering, medicine, and computer programming.

Democrats have betrayed the Middle Class in the hope of acquiring more voters, but the price: the transformation of the U.S. into a third-world wasteland.

I would never vote for someone like Barack Obama who actually is supporting the third-world invasion of the U.S.

Posted by Traditional Democrat | June 7, 2007 2:39 PM

LaFollette--

Dorgan's amendment would be good for the pro-amnesty side if it were to pass. It is objectionable enough, though, to X number of currently pro-amnesty senators that they'd change their vote to no now that it's in. And X=enough senators that it wouldn't pass the Senate.

As Mickey Kaus's headline has it now:

FASTER, DORGAN! KILL! KILL!

Posted by Zagnut | June 7, 2007 2:59 PM

Zagnut, that was larded with gratuitous spin and really doesn't answer my question anyway.

Who would support this zombie immigration compromise bill if it contains a permanent guest-worker program, but oppose it if contains a temporary guest-worker program? And why?

Personally, I'm not too fussed about the "amnesty" provisions, and I like the employer sanctions and increased border patrols in the compromise package. I oppose the bill because of the guest-worker program. Putting a sunset provision on the program makes the immigration bill more palatable to me, not less. Why is this amendment a deal-breaker?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 7, 2007 3:22 PM

Well, if the more pro-immigration Dems really want this immigration bill, seems like they should have to live with reasonable compromises like a five-year sunset. If the program is working, it can always be renewed. I guess I don't see why they would rather let the bill die on the vine rather than accept something like this.

Posted by Steve | June 7, 2007 3:31 PM

LaFollette:

It's a poison bill because, for legislators who are in favor of increasing unskilled immigration, cutting off the 'guest' worker influx at 1 million (200k per year x 5 years) is insufficient.

By the way, anyone who thinks that these guest workers are actually going to leave at the end of their authorized period is a fool. We will end up with a new class of illegals (the overstaying guest workers) in addition to tens of millions of newly legalized unskilled workers and their relatives. Then, in ten or twenty years, there will be calls to legalize the illegals who overstayed their guest worker permits.

The salient point is this: those who support this bill because they think it will end future illegal immigration are deluded. The 1986 bill didn't prevent new illegals and this won't either, because any laws designed to prevent new illegals won't be enforced.

Posted by Fred | June 7, 2007 3:57 PM

Why is this amendment a deal-breaker?

I suspect because the guest-worker program is what business most wants. Republicans, remember, are being pulled in different directions by their corporate and racist wings. You sunset what the corporate wing wants, then there's no reason for them not to appease the racists. That's my guess, anyway.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 7, 2007 3:58 PM

That should have been poison "pill" of course. What seems reasonable to people with moderate positions is often considered a poison pill by those with more extreme goals. That's essentially why many may oppose a five year sunset on a guest worker program

Posted by fred | June 7, 2007 4:01 PM

LaFollette,

I used "pro-amnesty" and "anti-amnesty" for clarity's sake. I originally had a parenthetical "ignore the terminology, it's for clarity," but then I took it out because, well, the bill *is* amnesty...

Posted by Zagnut | June 7, 2007 4:09 PM

It's a poison bill because, for legislators who are in favor of increasing unskilled immigration, cutting off the 'guest' worker influx at 1 million (200k per year x 5 years) is insufficient.

Fred, I see where you're going with this, but it presumes the pro-guest-worker side are morons.

You want a loaf of bread. I say "too much, here's half a loaf." If you respond "fuck you, I want it all" you get nothing and starve. Pro-guest-worker politicians should prefer a 5 year guest worker provision to no guest worker provision at all.

Posted by Phaedrus | June 7, 2007 4:17 PM

"Pro-guest-worker politicians should prefer a 5 year guest worker provision to no guest worker provision at all."

I'm thinking this amendment is a poison pill to the people who were happy with the status quo--namely, the corporate wing of both parties. They'll tolerate the border patrols and increased inspections as long as they can use the guest worker program to prevent the bill from having any impact on their bottom line. But they'd rather maintain the status quo than face the prospect of immigration raids and fines WITHOUT guest workers. Even if it's just a sunset clause that can be renewed five years from now.

This is why Zagnut's spin was so misleading. The people who care about "amnesty," on both sides of the issue, aren't going to care much about this amendment. It's the people who care about CHEAP, EXPLOITABLE LABOR who consider this a poison pill.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 7, 2007 4:36 PM

Phaedrus:

"Fred, I see where you're going with this, but it presumes the pro-guest-worker side are morons."

Not necessarily. The pro-guest worker folks would compromise, as you suggest, if they thought they could get an extension on the guest worker program after five years. They probably doubt that though, because they realize that if this bill passes there will be no political support for extending the guest worker program later.

Posted by Fred | June 7, 2007 5:09 PM

LaFollette,

I wasn't being deliberately misleading. Replace "pro-amnesty" with "pro-bill" in my post and the point holds.

Posted by Zagnut | June 7, 2007 5:29 PM

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! naepyvodnxlrb

Posted by fkkpnvpadt | June 18, 2007 6:02 AM