Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Failure of Immigration Reform Has Created a Living Hell. What's Next?

By Frank Sharry, AlterNet. Posted May 27, 2008.


A leading voice in the movement for smart immigration reform surveys the political landscape and calls for a new direction.
Advertisement

I am an immigrant advocate. I have worked in the nation's capitol for more than a decade in pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would enfranchise millions of undocumented workers, reunite families separated for years by restrictions and backlogs, and admit needed workers in a way that would protect their rights, and do so in a way that would restore the rule of law to our nation's dysfunctional immigration system.

A year ago I predicted that an admittedly flawed comprehensive immigration reform bill would clear the U.S. Senate, get improved and approved in the House of Representatives, and be signed into law. I was wrong. In June of 2007 the Senate bill crashed and burned before the House ever had a chance to take it up.

The so-called “grand bargain” that had been birthed in a back room by the White House and leading Republicans and Democrats in the Senate turned out to be an orphan. The right wing went nuts and mobilized in opposition to what it called an “amnesty” bill. Many in the progressive community stayed on the sidelines or actually opposed what they saw as a Bush- and business- friendly bill that was not sufficiently pro-worker and pro-immigrant.

Those of us who supported the Senate bill held our noses in doing so. We knew the Senate bill was deeply flawed, but we believed the legalization component for the 12 million undocumented immigrants was decent and the family reunification provisions could be fixed before final passage, and we were hopeful that if the bill passed the Senate, the House would make it more worker- and immigrant-friendly on a number of fronts. Truth be told, we were motivated as much by fear as by hope, for we worried that in the aftermath of a failed immigration reform effort, the situation for immigrant workers and families on the ground would become a living hell.

We never got to test the first assertion, since the House never took up comprehensive reform once the Senate bill died. Unfortunately, the second prediction has come true. Immigrant workers and families are currently subjected to a virtual state of siege. High-profile raids, state and local anti-immigrant initiatives, and aggressive police enforcement of immigration laws in a growing number of communities have created a climate of terror that permeates the daily lives of some 20 million people in mixed-status families (most undocumented immigrants live in households with other family members who are citizens or permanent residents). They fear the knock at the door in the middle of the night, the red police light in the rearview mirror for a traffic violation, the helicopter over the work site, and the agents sitting in parked cars near elementary schools, for each could mean arrest, detention, deportation, family separation and dashed dreams.

What happened? Why did comprehensive immigration reform fail? Didn't a Republican-controlled Senate approve a version of comprehensive immigration reform in 2006 with 62 votes, 23 of them Republican? Why did a more right-leaning version of comprehensive immigration reform fail in 2007 in a Congress controlled by Democrats? And what will it take to get back to immigration reform with a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants currently working and living in the United States?

Here's my take on the specific and big-picture reasons we lost.

The specific reasons are twofold. First, the right-wing revolt against President George Bush and the bill intimidated all but a handful of Republicans into opposition. By way of background, the right-left legislative strategy we adopted relied on Bush, Republicans and business allies to deliver 25 to 30 Republican votes in the Senate to reach the filibuster-proof margin of 60 votes. This seemed doable when the grand bargain was first unveiled. But after the party's conservatives decided to join with the extremist anti-immigrant groups to rise up in protest, only 12 Republicans voted for a bill designed to attract their votes. Second, as a policy solution to the complex challenge of illegal immigration, the grand bargain was viewed not only as too liberal by the right, but as too conservative for the left and too unworkable for the policy experts. This combination meant that the bill, which needed to catch an updraft of support from a public wanting a solution and constituencies wanting a bill, instead met a stiff headwind of resistance.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: immigration, workplace enforcement, sharry, comprehensive immigration

Frank Sharry is the executive director of America's Voice.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Immigration! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Third Way
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 27, 2008 1:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not support a free pass for the illegal immigrants but also do not support the ignorant and unrealistic fear-mongering of many on the right.

I will not bend on the expectation that immigrants be LAW ABIDING and that starts with not coming illegally.

More of the same on AlterNet
Posted by: countingdaisies on May 27, 2008 2:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Always pro-illegal immigration articles here. The editors obviously haven't been paying attention to the fact that most of the comments posted on these articles are anti-illegal immigration. The brainwashing attempts don't appear to be working. How about some articles on the other side of the issue. Bias and censorship is not progressive.

» Comments ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» They do Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Comments ... Posted by: desidid
» RE: Comments ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Comments ... Posted by: desidid
» RE: Comments ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» I am shocked... shocked! Posted by: LonewackoDotCom2
» Lonewacko Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: More of the same on AlterNet Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: More of the same on AlterNet Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: More of the same on AlterNet Posted by: Cybershaman
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
We have reached the tipping point.
Posted by: douglashoyt on May 27, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Immigration problems are just a symptom of the bigger problems.

There is no stopping the cataclysmic destruction of humankind within the next two decades, or so.

Why?

The population is run-a-way, the easy acquisition of resources for industrialization are rapidly diminishing, clean energy sources are not replacing dirty inefficient technology, agricultural land in out of balance with restorative land, GMO are replacing adaptive natural seed crops, etc. etc.

Humankind has painted itself into a corner. There is no way out.

The first three leading comments (threads) reveal how the AlterNet community is not progressive.
Posted by: daniel347x on May 27, 2008 5:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first three (leading) comments (threads) reveal something I've noticed about AlterNet for years - on so many issues, the culture of those reading Alternet is not progressive or alternative.

It tends to be progressive and alternative on single issues - but not on coalitions, on movement building across single-issue-politics. On these matters, the readership of AlterNet is not particularly progressive - rather, it's about as reactionary as the general population of the U.S. (assuming it is mostly a U.S. website).

It's a shame. AlterNet has severe problems as an alternative news source. Catering to single-issue politics, sensationalizing things in an extreme manner, placing corporate ads on their site, all have the effect of influencing the choice of articles published on AlterNet such that progressive articles are watered down or replaced with simplified sensationalistic pieces.

This article in particular, which I think is a good one - but, as the article says, takes a controversial stance amongst progressives on the issue of worker visas - is a case in point. The stance is controversial amongst progressives not because worker visas are too progressive, but because they are not progressive enough. However, the criticism of the first two postings, and likely the third, suggest that the article is not progressive because worker visas are too progressive. (They don't phrase it that way, but that doesn't change my sense of this.)

There are a number of other points in the article - not worker visas - that the first three posters may object to, instead of or in addition to worker visas. In fact, the first three posters may say that I'm misjudging them, because perhaps on the single matter of worker visas they might possibly support the author. Since they weren't specific, I can only guess. But, in this case their reactionary stand is even more severe, not less.

In any case, the first three three postings are representative of one of the reasons why I have difficulty using AlterNet as a progressive source. I get enough reactionary material over the course of my day; it fills the culture. When I come to an alternative website for a progressive voice, I don't have time to waste on comments such as the first three, who have merely adopted the phrase 'progressive' as a stylistic choice. (I am assuming that they consider themselves progressive, since they don't say so anywhere in their postings.)

Like so many of the reactionary, single-issue, or sensationalistic comments on AlterNet - and sometimes articles -(mixed in with some good progressive ones), these examples show that the word 'progressive' has all but lost its meaning today and become loaded as a cultural, stylistic choice - just as the words 'feminism' and 'green' have. (All these words should mean something of progressive value, and are often used holding true to this value, but are equally - if not more - often used as simple loaded symbols for the sake of rhetoric by people who make any point they wish while identifying with 'left-wing' culture.)

It's a shame. We as progressives have movement-building we need to accomplish, organizing that needs to be done. We don't have time for sensationalism or single-issue politics. The constant flood of reactionary comments - such as the first three - or such as anthropogenic global warming deniers who appear in numbers in response to every article about the climate - etc. - is an example.

It's a shame.

Dan Nissenbaum

» Please don't mistake ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Not accurate Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Not accurate Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Not accurate Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Not accurate Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Not accurate Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Not accurate Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Not accurate Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Not accurate Posted by: Brez
» Dan Posted by: bobtr900
» RE: Dan Posted by: Lauren
And then what?
Posted by: LeaveMeAlone on May 27, 2008 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer states that visa limits will be part of the new and improved immigration reform. But once these reforms are initiated, how will such limits be enforced? Will the writer support any sort of enforcement? I doubt it. He will start another campaign to confer legal status on the next twelve to twenty million who come here in violation of the new visa limits he's now proposing. If we give immigrant visas to those currently here without legal status, we can hardly blame those who think that our laws mean nothing and that if they can reach the U.S. and hide long enough they, too, will eventually receive legal status and citizenship. I'm a farily liberal American, but I cannot be expected to support national suicide--which will be the result if we have an open border policy.

» RE: And then what? Posted by: Lauren
» RE: And then what? Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: And then what? Posted by: desidid
Elites on the left and right want illegal immigration to continue unabated
Posted by: blogbooks on May 27, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Republicans get cheap labor for their pals in big business which drives down wages and turns us all into serfs.

Democrats get voters to expand their power base.

They both get well manicured lawns and clean pools for next to nothing.

It's win/win!

Nothing will be done to counter illegal immigration because the interests of both the right wing elites and left wing elites are served by allowing it.

Disengenuous Trash
Posted by: Brez on May 27, 2008 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"2. We were not prepared to effectively counter the culturally charged and increasingly racialized debate."

Racialized!? This is just more of the same disingenuous trash talking crap that the anti-labor, anti-American worker, one-worlder Pollyannas use EVERY TIME.

I am an American worker. I do NOT want my job downsourced to some illegal immigrant who will do it for whatever some piggish employer will pay. I don't really care if that foreign scab is Latino, Asian, Indian or Canadian, he or she can either stay home or come here legally, where he is, and would be, welcome. (He trabajado con "tarjeta verdes" con mucho gusto. Son damas y caballeros, y yo se que, por lo menos, dos estan applicando para nacionalidad US. Bienvenido!)

And just who are hurt the most by illegal aliens? Hmmm, let's see now... Could it be those who have immigrated here legally and are trying to earn a living (at a living wage) and who have followed the law? Yes, It just could be - in fact, it is. If one talks rationally with legal immigrants, you might find that a great number of them are just as supportive of LEGAL immigration, and opponents of ILLEGAL immigration, as is the vast majority of Americans (whom Mr. Sharry classifies as racists). No surprise there - they have done the right thing and expect others, including their countrymen, to do likewise.

So, if I were to stoop to the phony ad hominum trash talking that Mr. Sharry and the other enemies of American labor continuously indulge in to attempt to justify their joining with the Republican corporate whores in destroying what is left of jobs for the middle and lower class here, I might accuse THEM of being the racists by harming all legal immigrants.

But I won't.

» RE: Disengenuous Trash Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Disengenuous Trash Posted by: Brez
» RE: Disengenuous Trash Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: Disengenuous Trash Posted by: desidid
Alternet Not Listening
Posted by: davidhhahn on May 27, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read Alternet for many years, but I weary of what appears to be a progressive-reactionary tendency by Alternet in its portrayal of the immigration issue and, especially, of those are were not in favor of the recently-defeated "comprehensive immigration reform."

This article by Mr. Sharry is yet another example of the rigidness and non-listening position of the left to the very legitimate concerns and positions of those of us who consider ourselves progressive. I opposed "comprehensive immigration reform" and I lobbied my senators and representatives to vote against it.

I do not want any human being to live in fear, and do not advocate anything inhumane; but I also strongly sense that the key to unlocking the immigration knot that we have gotten ourselves into in this country is in the hands of the left; and it starts with listening (and not just reacting), agreeing with some reasonable positions of the "right," and positioning the arguments in favor of American values.

Listening. Mr. Sharry resorts to the same type of name calling that he derides by the "anti-immigrant" wing who appear to "go nuts" because they do not agree with his positions. Those are his words in this article. Read it again and other catch phrases like "extremist" and such. I, and millions of folks who feel the same way I do take as much a step back at being assaulted by these descriptions in the same way we are offended by those who would call us "anti-baby" or "pro-death" because we support the public policy on abortion set forth in Roe vs. Wade. It just does not advance the possibility of solutions by categorizing the millions of us who do NOT like to listen to Rush Limbaugh and such as if we are part of some hate-filled contingent. We have legitimate concerns and Mr. Sharry will find it difficult to enlist our support for anything if he keeps calling us names.


Agreeing with our positions. I rarely read or hear anything about any agreement on such issues as 1) stopping and reducing new illegal immigration {or at least making an attempt} by buidling a good fence that stops folks from crossing our southern border [BTW, I once discussed this point with a friend who was opposed to a fence; as we sat on the deck in his back yard...which was surrounded by an 8 foot fence. He explained to me that "fences make good neighbors" but was against the fence between the U.S. and Mexico because it was "anti-immigrant" and so was I, apparently. 2) agreeing to English as the official language of the United States of America. That is not reactionary. Please read about this position on
http://www.us-english.org. And, read the book "Language, Thought, and Action" to understand why many of us believe that bi-lingualism should not be the official position of the United States; even while we agree that multiple spoken languages in a society is fine. (I am fluent in English and German, but certainly do not believe the goverment should write its forms in German for me). 3) We have legitimate security and health concerns about people entering our country who we don't know about carrying bombs or disease.

The list goes on...could Mr. Sharry and other agree with anything we say, at all? It sure would be good to hear it rather than being cast in the cellar of modern thought as an "anti-immigrant" reactionary.

The simple point is that it is the left, Mr. Sharry and others, who can move this forward only by publically and loudly agreeing that it is a good thing to obey the law, that English should be the official language of the United States, and we can all agree on a fence or some other measure to stop future illegal immigration if we come to agreement on how to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants now in the United States.

Thank you

» Point of fact Posted by: Joshua Holland
» It was Walmart Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: It was Walmart Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: It was Walmart Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: It was Walmart Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Point of fact Posted by: Lauren
How to end that (shock!) "Immigration Hell"
Posted by: zooeyhall on May 27, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just stop crashing the gates and climbing over fences in the middle of the night.

"climate of terror?"
Posted by: ptown on May 27, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a bit ironic that this article is run on the same day as the article on Envirogees.

At some point, the illegal vs. legal immigration issue will be moot. We will all be living under drought conditions, facing starvation, and eco-toxicity.

In 100 years, every single one of us and our loved ones will be dead. Be grateful you lived in a time of relative comfort.

Worried about the future of the planet and her peoples? Don't breed.

Right After Memorial Day
Posted by: Mexitli on May 27, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HA!

You can tell some people just couldn't wait to scapegoat the poor for their own inadequacies.

Couldn't wait to blame the Mexicans, huh?

Miguided misunderstanding
Posted by: edweirdness on May 27, 2008 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As with so many pro-illegal supporters, Dan's misguided substitution of his own views for those of a majority of America's Citizens has lead to his misunderstanding of what actually happened with Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation.

America's Citizens, in near revolt, shouted down this egregious immigration reform policy. Rather than a limited number of "far right" fanatics, it was an overwhelming plurality of America's Citizens, acting through their elected representatives, who stymied this dangerously misguided attempt at usurping the will of the people.

Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, crumbling infrastructure, overcrowded schools and emergencey rooms, lack of affordable housing, vanishing farm land and green space, diminishing resources, crime, pollution, depressed wages, increased tax burdens, the balkanization of our communities, the overall decline in quality of life, are all the result of unconstrained immigration.

Indeed, there is no problem confronting America's Citizens that would not be measurably improved by securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws!

America is considered "population stable". That is to say, that births to American Citizens is equal to the number of deaths of American Citizens. To be blunt, even if all immigration were suddenly stopped, America would never be any less overpopulated than it is today. Arguments that there will be a shortage of workers are based on outdated, unsustainable social security and social service models, and buying into this insanity will only prolong and deepen the disasterous effects of finally coming to grips with this reality.

Virtually every industrialized nation, even China and Mexico, have taken steps, often draconnian steps, to end illegal immigration, and too curtail legal immigration to only that which is prudent, demonstrably necessary, and above all other considerations, in the best interests of their native population! It's dangerously misguided to suggest that the United States not do likewise.

More people competing for limited resources has never been considered sound economic, environmental, social or cultural policy! Whereas America's native born population has nowhere else to go, illegal aliens and their dependents have the option of returning to, or being returned to their country of origin. Being sent home for violating another nations sovereignty, in most cases, can hardly be considered a "living hell". Particularly when you consider that Mexico (as an easy example) has a lower rate of unemployment than the United States (3.6% versus 4.9%), and the 12th. highest Gross Domestic Product on the planet, with only a third of the population of the United States. The cost of living in Mexico, albeit sans America's tax payer funded health care and education benefits, is approximately one third that of living in the USA. Like it or not, illegal aliens prefer a system that rewards their illegal presence in our nation, while their remittances (seldom taxed here, and never taxed by the receiving nation) allow them and their families to live "far above" the level that their skills and education would otherwise allow.

I would say...
Posted by: bobtr900 on May 27, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the first thing Mr. Sharry has to do is get rid of the Rethuglicant party. When he does that I'll listen. The Rethug party and all of it's enablers, including the Theocons and the Neocons are bent on dismantling America for the 'Culture of Death' for profits and ever more political power for them, and only them.

As long as the 'will of the people', the American people is being stepped on by the Republican party and it's 59million voters than all I can say is 'rots of ruck' Mr. Sharry.

And finally how does the author square his ideas with the fact that something over 80% of Americans do not want illegal immigration, open borders or amnesty. As for the idea of limited visas, well tell that to the illegal immigrants when they refuse to go home after the 'picking season' is over.

Illegal immigrants are not bad people, for the most part, they just want a shot at a better life. But how does dismantling America by breaking our laws and thus ending our rule of law give them that shot and what does it do for the rest of us.

In any case, if the present system goes on for a decade there will no longer be any need for debate and legal adjustments. Illegal immgration will be a 'fait accompli' because there will be so many illegals here that our rule of law will be effectively ended. It will be up to them to remake America in their own image.
So all I can say to them is lots of luck in re-establishing our no longer existing 'rule of law'. Because if it's dismantled for them then it will be dismantled for all and may never be put together again. Something once broken is not always fixable.

And what tells the illegals that devolving America into a third world banana republic will be any better than what they left.

» If this is your concern: Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: I would say... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: I would say... Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: I would say... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: I would say... Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: I would say... Posted by: edweirdness
Pragmatism isn't racism
Posted by: edweirdness on May 27, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny how so many "pro-illegals" assert that any pragmatic approach (except their comprehensive amnesty) to address illegal immigration is nothing less than racism?

So much of what we see going wrong with our nation has more to do with corruption and guile of politicians, bureaucrats, and cheap labor interests, and very little to do with any true racism. Playing the race card is allways the best alternative to affirmatively addressing the problem. Playing the race card automatically provides a vast population of liberals and progressives who would protest that pragmatism is racism, and thereby remove any pragmatic solution from fair consideration.

As I've said before, Too many people competing for limited resources has never been considered sound economic, environmental, social or cultural policy. Indeed, the underlying premise, that of overpopulation being a problem, belies any solution other than pragmatism! Virtually every invasion since the dawn of time might be charitably be characterized as simply "mass immigration" for the purpose of advancing the interests of the invading nation.

If poverty, starvation, disease, war, are not disincentives to breeding, how would an "open borders" policy, a policy that specifically disadvantages native born and naturalized American Citizens, serve to do anything save bring disaster to our shores?

Massive immigration of predatory self interested economic opportunists (a better way of describing those who "junt want a better way of life") cannot be considered in any sort of positive context. Anyone so "self interested, lazy or cowardly" as to flee rather than work to establish democracy and social justice in their native land, is hardly the sort of immigrant we should encourage to come! The United States its economy, and its tax payers cannot be held hostage by corrupt, failed governments and economies beyond our borders. Any nation that does not produce the goods its people consume, or that cannot feed its population from the bounty withing its borders, is doomed to remain subservient to foreign interests!

» RE: Pragmatism isn't racism Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Pragmatism isn't racism Posted by: edweirdness
The tidal wave must stop!
Posted by: HughScott on May 27, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being fiscally conservative and socially liberal, I have struggled for years with the illegal immigration problem. My heart said to let undocumented aliens alone while my mind told me the unlawful invasion of our nation must stop.

The struggle is over.

As bad as I feel for honest, hardworking foreigners that entered America without permission for a better life, it's time to focus on honest, hardworking U.S. citizens who are paying the price. I will endorse any method that is nonviolent which can help eliminate illegal immigration.

Since none of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are up for the task,
pressure on Congress may be our only hope for turning the tide -- more correctly, tidal wave.

Fairness and Justice
Posted by: Jerry on May 27, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am very involved in promoting immigrant rights. I propose Open Borders, period. Let them come, bring their families. Reform labor laws to insure fair pay and medical coverage. this is the American Way.

Down with racism!

» RE: Fairness and Justice Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Fairness and Justice Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Fairness and Justice Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Fairness and Justice Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Fairness and Justice Posted by: Brez
» RE: Fairness and Justice Posted by: desidid
» RE: Fairness and Justice Posted by: SOWILO
Call for a new direction
Posted by: edweirdness on May 27, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about this as a "new direction".

Seeing as how "open borders" has failed on a level so gigantic that it resists attempts to adequately quantify just how spectacularly it has failed;

And seeing as how, in the past, enforcement of our immigration laws, at least those time when it has been widespread policy to enforce said immigration laws, it has proven successful in addressing, and reducing over illegal populations;

We try a new direction of securing our borders (a direction never actually attempted), and enforcing our immigration laws (a direction not utilized since the Eisenhower administration)?

That this "new direction" mirrors the views, values and interests of 80% of America's Citizens and tax payers, should not go unnoticed.

During the Eisenhower Administration, approximately 1.5 millions illegal aliens from Mexico were located and deported, in less than 4 months, using fewer than 800 Border Patrol agents.

Based on a consensus of America's Citizens on the issue of illegal immigration, a sound case can be made that securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws, indeed; a demand for lower immigration numbers overall, can be made. The will of the people, more specifically, the will of the majority of America's Citizens, being the fundamental basis of our democracy, cannot be argued. Any legislation or policy that would undermine or usurp the will of said people, cannot be condoned!

» RE: They not only deported Mexicans Posted by: countingdaisies
» Bad Example Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Call for a new direction Posted by: Mexitli
Web Ad: Memorial Day
Posted by: Mexitli on May 27, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Web Ad: Memorial Day

"Who love this country so much, that theyre willing to risk their lives in its service, in order to accelerate thier path to citizenship..."

» RE: Web Ad: Memorial Day Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Web Ad: Memorial Day Posted by: Mexitli
Sorry edweirdness, hardliners in the minority
Posted by: Joshua Holland on May 27, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is accurate to say that a majority of Americans consider illegal immigration to be a problem.

Those who favor a hardline approach often make the mistake of viewing that as an affirmation of their preferred policies. But when the question focuses on what to do to better manage immigration to the U.S., it is a small minority that share their views.

As political scientist Teixeira noted, when the actual proposal for "comprehensive immigration reform" was explained to people, it was supported by very large majorities. A CNN poll taken last May (PDF), just before that groundswell of outrage killed the bill, found that 80 percent of those polled -- four in five -- favored "creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay in this country and apply for U.S. citizenship if they had a job and paid back taxes." A New York Times/ CBS poll conducted last May found that two-thirds of respondents said, "Illegal immigrants who have a good employment history and no criminal record should gain legal status as the bill proposes: by paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving a renewable four-year visa." A Gallup poll from mid-April again found that eight in 10 favored granting immigrants a path to citizenship if they "meet certain requirements over a period of time."

The reverse is also true; that same Gallup poll, taken at the height of the policy debate in 2007, found that only one in five wanted immigrants already in the country to leave forever or to leave and return as temporary guest workers without the possibility of citizenship.

» continued Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Direct democracy Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Direct democracy Posted by: desidid
Josh Holland: here, there, and everywhere
Posted by: Informed on May 27, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am increasingly concerned about Joshua Holland’s role on Alternet. As a staff writer, he has access to readership through the columns he writes, on an almost-daily basis, to make his points. What is disturbing is that he constantly uses the Reader Comment forum to answer (argue) the comments of readers. The Reader Comment section is just that – for readers. Its primary use (and usefulness) is to exchange views with each other. But no: sooner or later –usually sooner--there is Holland, horning in on the discussion, “correcting” posters and engaging in personal tit for tat with particular posters he apparently doesn’t like or agree with. What is he doing, conducting a teach-in for (who he apparently regards as) the ill informed? If so, he should just start his own blog so those who want more of his opinions can seek them in another venue.

Holland has a particular view or slant about immigration; fine, he has his columns to express it. And BTW, his slant doesn’t make him the ultimate expert on the subject: many readers make equally valid points from their perspective. As one who has studied international migration, it’s clear to me that Holland consistently cites from a self-selected set of sources, and his views portray one interpretation of the issue. There are many interpretations –and conclusions to draw – from diverse data.

It seems to me that Holland’s online behavior is not an appropriate for an Alternet staff writer (And no, I’m not advocating “censorship” of anybody.) I notice that none of the other staff writers are intrusive to extent the Holland is. He even chimes in on the Reader Comment sections of other writers! Alternet managers, please exert some professional standards for your staff. Or does your zealous advocacy of illegal immigration (one, two, or more columns per day…) preclude this minimal exertion of editorial oversight?

» Wow! Posted by: countingdaisies
» This is a common compaint Posted by: Mexitli
» Very nice Lauren! Posted by: lefty010
No more "Give me your tired, your poor . . . ."
Posted by: billwald on May 27, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America is now "We have ours and you can't have yours." This is true in national, state, and local politics. Maybe we should return the Statue of Liberty to France.

» Better yet ... Posted by: countingdaisies
» Thanks edweirdness! Posted by: countingdaisies
Good Assessment
Posted by: Rick Vine on May 27, 2008 9:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thought this was a pretty good assessment of today's immigration situation and the poisoned
political environment. We antidotes for the toxic talk and real remedies.

» RE: Good Assessment Posted by: Rick Vine
» RE: Good Assessment Posted by: desidid
Good Assessment
Posted by: Rick Vine on May 27, 2008 10:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thought this was a pretty good assessment of today's immigration situation and the poisoned
political environment. We need antidotes for the toxic talk and real remedies.

Economic value of undocumented
Posted by: clos on May 27, 2008 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is important to consider the economic importance of the undocumented.
this is particularly true during a recession.

How many small business and farmers are going out of business because of a shortage of labor?

If only for our own self interest in the prosperity of our country we must consider the economic impacts of current policies.

Has anyone seen "A Day Without Mexicans?, not a good film, but an excellent metaphor. . .

» RE: conomic value of undocumented Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: conomic value of undocumented Posted by: Joshua Holland
Current Immigration Policy Relies On Coercion
Posted by: hole11 on May 27, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Might as well let the IRS run it. You have to jump through so many hoops to prove your innocent it begs the question why anyone would participate in such a scam.

If you are here five years and haven't got in any trouble you should be able to stay.

Two Reasons Racism Is Used As a Rallying Cry
Posted by: desidid on May 27, 2008 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe those who are pro illegal immigrant use the word racism because they know many Blacks who neither know the history of US immigration policy, nor view it as a weapon that has been aimed at us since we got here, will support anything viewed as racist. Secondly it makes those descended from earlier immigrants like the Irish, Italians, Germans, English feel a kinship, which will accelerate the assimilation of the new Hispanic immigrant, because we really aren't talking about any other immigrants are we? In the meantime native Blacks are fleeing California and finding our neighborhood schools (and we all know innercity schools are segregated)not offering AP courses, but we have ESL. We have soccerfields in innercity parks, but few ballfields. Because many White liberals rarely venture into urban America they only know what they read. If you read things like Alternet you will be led to believe illegal immigration is a victimless crime. At least until you become a victim.

» You Have Two Points? Posted by: hole11
» RE: You Have Two Points? Posted by: desidid
» hole11 . . . Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: You Have Two Points? Posted by: hole11
» This is bullshit Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: This is bullshit Posted by: SOWILO
» C-YA Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: C-YA Posted by: SOWILO
» RE: My Choice Not To Respond Posted by: desidid
ILLEGAL!!
Posted by: beaubeau on May 27, 2008 12:08 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JUST WHAT IS IT ABOUT 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION'PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND. AMERICA PROVIDES A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP. SURE LOTS OF AMERICANS ARE JUST RACIST, BUT OTHERS LIKE ME; RESENT LIKE HELL 'THE INVASION'. WHAT IS IN THE PSYCHE OF PEOPLE - THAT MAKES THEM BELIEVE, THEY CAN JUST WALK INTO OUR COUNTRY AND DEMAND TO STAY!! AS FOR, "AMERICA WOULDN'T SURVIVE, WITHOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS - B.S." !!! AMERICAN CITIZENS MUST RESPECT OUR LAWS, FOR DAMN SURE THOSE HERE ILLEGALLY SHOULD RESPECT OUR LAWS. THE FIRST BROKEN LAW, ENTERING OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY!!!

No End in Sight
Posted by: zak822 on May 27, 2008 12:31 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You were defeated, not because of economic anxiety, the framing of your opponents, radicalized debate or a lack of electoral might. All played a part, but in the end, you were defeated because if the bill passed, it would not close the floodgates and everyone knew it.

For all that it may be just to make provisions for those here already, there is no end in sight to the flow of people who want a better life. Until you come up with a solution that looks real (unlike the pitable offerings to date), you will continue to lose.

Most of us understand that even though the issue is beloved by racists, nativists and others of unsavory bent, America simply cannot absorb everyone in Central and South America who wants a better life. It's impossible. If you dispute my position, please, explain how we can do it.

And please, no temporary (or whatever other euphamism you care for) visa talk. We tried that already and quickly found out the neither party had any stomach for the enforcement end of the deal. Immigrants came in on their visas, and simply stayed on.

» RE: No End in Sight Posted by: SOWILO
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Lucky for you.... Posted by: lefty010
Why Not Help Mexico Instead Of Spending $2 Billion a Week on Iraq?
Posted by: sofla100 on May 27, 2008 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is, no matter how much those who seem to rant endlessly about "the illegals," etc., there is one thing they will simply have to accept. That is the immigration system of the USA is broken, totally. First of all, the system make absolutely no sense. Here in Florida, those who come in from Cuba but make it to "dry land," are given asylum. However, those who are captured at sea are sent back to Cuba. Meanwhile, Haitians, who come from much poorer countries then Cuba, are always sent back. This policy is, of course, nothing more then pandering to Dade Country Cubans who mostly vote Republican. Cubans coming to Miami have long been known to come here for economic reasons more then anything else. Next, 4 million people in Puerto Rico are already USA citizens, even though Puerto Rico is a USA Territory and not a state. Lastly, America has perhaps 12 million or more illegal aliens within her borders. Just how do you expect to round up and deport 12 million people? It would require something that would make our much beloved Patriot Act look like a walk in the park. We would have to post our "Homeland Security" troops at every street corner to "check your papers," etc. Is this the America that we all want? Or do you want an electrified fence and a mine field at America's Southern Border to keep people out, and even that won't work. My opinion, America would be much better off focusing on the economic development of countries like Mexico. Instead of spending $2 billion a week on the stupidity of the Iraq war, why not help Mexico improve her infrastructure and society? That way, the people would just stay home. Just as they stay in Canada and Western Europe, where the people are better off then in the USA for the most part anyway. As for comprehensive immigration reform, it's better then ranting about the problem or proposing solutions that cannot possibly work. We need to do something.

You can't use or scapegoat people like
Posted by: paintchips on May 27, 2008 1:14 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We want their labor not them? How bigoted is that? Arizona and Oklahoma cracked down hard on immigrants and it is killing their economies. The same people who passed laws trying to get rid of immigrants now are trying to get them back. Only this time the immigrnats couldn't stay or bring their families. How offense is that crap??? We'll use you but your kind isn't good enough for us?

WHAT ABOUT THIS?
Posted by: SOWILO on May 27, 2008 1:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My concern is that we are absorbing an unprecedented amount of South and Central Americans in a collapsing economy. Our country has a very real chance, regardless of the influx of these people, of turning into something on par with where they are fleeing from.

What is going to happen if they continue to flood in after our economy has collapsed? What opportunities are going to be here for these people? Are they going to join roving street gangs?

This is serious, folks. Here in Los Angeles, sections of the city are starting to look like places in South America with shanties, poverty, etc.

I understand that the corporations and consumption are problems, but amnesty isn't the solution.

This is going to be a mess no matter how we look at it.

What are we going to do with these people in a collapsing economy.

What about the COLLAPSING ECONOMY, alternet?!!

» WTF? Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: WTF? Posted by: SOWILO