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

Immigration: Too Hot for the Dems?

By Roberto Lovato, New America Media. Posted August 27, 2008.


America's brutal immigration detention network is getting little attention from Democratic reformers and their institutional allies in Denver.
Advertisement

DENVER, Colo. -- On the eve of the official nomination of presidential candidate Barack Obama, the son of an immigrant, some of the leading voices shaping the Democratic Party's immigration reform platform reveal a mix of reserved optimism and pragmatism.

While the Blue Dog Democrats -- a group of 47 moderate and conservative Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives -- support a position on immigration that bears more than a passing resemblance to the "enforcement only" approach of many Republicans, other Democrats support a combination of legalization and major reforms as alternatives to the raids and detentions that defined the Bush era of immigration.

In between these two positions are a significant number of Democrats and their supporters, who want to focus primarily on legalization without including any significant changes to the policies that enable raids and massive detention like this week's raid in Mississippi.

Outside of the Pepsi Convention Center are hundreds of immigrant rights groups planning a major mobilization this Thursday -- the day of Obama's acceptance speech. They will protest what they believe is the unwillingness of Democrats and their Washington-based immigrant rights allies to seriously support what the press release of the March 25th Coalition calls "human legalization and a moratorium on raids and deportations."

As she anxiously awaits the end of Bush era, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, says she sees real change on the immigration horizon. "I'm confident that with an Obama presidency we will have comprehensive immigration reform in the first term -- but it's not going to be easy."

Lofgren, a former immigration attorney, and other panelists speaking at one of the few events on immigration among the hundreds at the convention, were cautiously optimistic. But they also expressed a number of different interpretations of what the types of policies define "comprehensive immigration reform."

For her part, Lofgren, who did not support the McCain-Kennedy bill -- which combined policies legalizing the more than 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States with policies increasing the number of ways to persecute, prosecute, jail and deport future undocumented immigrants -- believes that "an important part of the answer is not to have so many people who do not have legal status." But at the same time, she believes that something must be done to bring an end to a "whole (detention) system that is wrong and causing lots of suffering." Lofgren and a number of other Democrats in Congress cite the recent case of the Chinese immigrant Hui Lui Ng, who died in immigration detention just two weeks before the DNC.

Though he, too, decries the raids, detention and deportation cited by Lofgren and others as the "least humane part of the broken immigration system," Simon Rosenberg, President and Founder of the New Democrat Network (NDN), which sponsored the panel, is not optimistic that these issues will be included in whatever reform package gets introduced next.

"Although desirable, I think it would be difficult to include fixing the detention and (immigration) judicial system in comprehensive immigration reform, because it really wasn't a critical part of what came about last time," said Rosenberg. "It doesn't mean that it shouldn't get done. I'm just not sure if that's the best vehicle for it. If the goal is to include these issues in comprehensive immigration reform, then we have lots of work to do to make them front and center in this debate."

Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, a Washington-based immigration reform group, admitted that he and other supporters of the McCain-Kennedy legislation failed because they "made concessions" on detention, enforcement and other issues in order to woo Republicans, who, Sharry said, "failed to bring any votes."

"We knew the Senate bill was deeply flawed, but we believed the legalization component for the 12 million immigrants was decent, and the family reunification provisions could be fixed before the final passage," Sharry said.

Sharry also stated that he and others were "hopeful" they could change some of the more than 700 pages of enforcement language in the McCain-Kennedy legislation.

For his part, Congressman Raul M. Grijalva, whose district in McCain's home state of Arizona was referred to during hallway talk at the DNC as "ground zero" for the immigration reform debate, said he has been pushing for his colleagues to place a priority not just on legalization, but on detention and raids as well. "We can't wait any more when it comes to demilitarizing and improving enforcement and detention," Grijalva said, as he received word of the ICE raid in Mississippi. "It's what I hear in my district all the time; all the time. And things have gotten better for us (Democrats) in the past five years. Our side has to get tougher. We can't afford to be as muted this time."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: democrats, dnc, immigration reform

Roberto Lovato, a frequent Nation contributor, is a New York-based writer with New America Media.

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:
Are You Sure the North Won the Civil War?
Posted by: edgar1 on Aug 27, 2008 12:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as the US economy slowly slides into oblivion, so will immigration. Already, there are fewer new illegal immigrants, and employers will face greater penalties, no matter who is in the White House.

For those immigrants who are already here, and who assimilate, they will simply be Americans. Their kids are legally american if born here, even if dad or mom are illegal.

As for those who are illegal, who stay here, and to speak Spanish or
Chinese or Swahili and remain in selfsegregated communities, they will continue to live on the margins, be politically irrelevant, and never take over the real levers of power in the US-financial investment firms and major media. Their kids are going nowhere in the public schools, and neither blacks nor whites have a stake in competing with well educated children of illegal immigrants, should a few survive the gamut of poor high schools these immigrants usually attend.

The tiny elite that runs Wall St, the Pentagon and Hollywood will continue to steer Washington, whether or not "minorities" become majorities as predicted by 2042 or not. Slavery worked fine even though the slaves outnumbered the masters. Power is determined by money and guns, not by numbers.

Obama is no Abe Lincoln, and this is an Anglo-Saxon culture no matter how many Martin Luther King holidays and National Hispanic Months are sponsored to keep the Latin and even African American masses deluded into thinking they are "as" American as mainstream whites. America plays a shell game with the media the master of ceremonies. Telemundo, BET and hip hop will keep the 'minorities' sedated while the real business of the nation is conducted at the Fed, at Princeton and Harvard, and in the private clubs of Washington, New York, Boston, LA and Chicago.

If anything, this nation is moving back to slavery with its illegal immigration low wage no rights work force,and labor unions that are powerless. The biggest irony is that even with Obama as President, this neo-colonial structure will remain in place, as it is flexible enough to accomodate a few Obamas, Richardsons and Vernon Jordans to provide the illusion of equal opportunity.

And of course advertisers have created the NFL and NBA to really make sure young black youth dont get their priorities wrong and aim for medical, business, law schools, or graduate schools of science.


The US ruling system is good, really good. Rode with the punches of the sixties and is ready to get things back to where they used to be and call it "progress" all the while!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Accurate analysis Posted by: billwald
RexJ
Posted by: RexJ123 on Aug 27, 2008 3:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, all you bleeding-heart liberals, what is your solution? March into businesses that employ illegals and - instead of removing the illegals - hand them all green cards and say, "Bienvenidos a Los Estados Unidos"??? No border will ever be 100% secure. No visa system will ever be 100% secure. Therefore, the only way to ensure that businesses do not hire illegals is to conduct these raids. To be certain, the businesses and the illegals are not going to voluntarily follow the law.

The immigration bill failed because the OVERWHELMING majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to ANY sort of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. If it comes up again during an Obama presidency, it will be shot down again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Factually incorrect Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Durendal55
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Durendal55
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Durendal55
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Durendal55
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Durendal55
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Durendal55
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Joshua Holland
» That's a measure of intensity Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: That's a measure of intensity Posted by: Durendal55
» RE: That's a measure of intensity Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: That's a measure of intensity Posted by: Durendal55
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Durendal55
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Factually incorrect Posted by: Durendal55
Poor Framing is the real Problem
Posted by: freedem on Aug 27, 2008 7:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Problem is not poor immigrants stealing good American Jobs, the problem is a Corporate culture that will exploit anyone for anything they can get away with, and using Immigration as they once used Race to drive a wedge, and hide the real culprits.

With honest Labor laws illegal immigrants would have no greymarket sweatshops to find work, and those who followed the rules would not be driven out of business by those who did not.

Arresting and abusing those in already desperate circumstances, while leaving those doing the exploiting with a hand slap or less makes good winger spin, but only enhances the Gang Of Pirates ability to still further exploit everyone.

Building a just society will make the illegal issue go away, but will not fit on a bumper sticker. Blaming the victims makes a nice bumper sticker but will not solve the problem.

Make any position support your Hype, and don't do anything to change whet you don't want changed anyway? What about that is there for the GOP not to love?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kudos to Edgar1
Posted by: marklittleboy on Aug 27, 2008 7:26 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kudos to Edgar1. Thanks for putting the story straight about the immigration in America and America's own fractured history in assimilating minorities. As an African-American male, I wholeheartedly support your comments. I keep trying to say these same things to my colleagues and friends and they say that I'm living in the Dark Ages. Yet, what you said about the NBA and NFL is so true. How many times have you and I both read of a promising college student who suddenly decides to turn professional after only have one or two years in college. A good example of this is Michael Vick (look what happened to him) and others to numerous to name. Thanks for a great comment. As a teacher in the public school system I am confronted by these irrational choices all day. My classes are filled with both Black and Mexican guys who think that they are auditioning for rap videos. If only they could read your words - if only they could read. It's frustrating to say the least. You pinned the argument down, flawlessly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I've been there too Posted by: edgar1
» RE: Kudos to Edgar1 Posted by: Durendal55
» RE: Kudos to Edgar1 Posted by: Old Skeptic
» RE: Kudos to Edgar1 Posted by: MdeG
franks
Posted by: mohl on Aug 28, 2008 12:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two vastly different extremes that are never likely to come together with a compromise solution. Alien supporters want all who are here to stay, opponents want them all to go. Each side is partially right.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform can never pass if it includes amnesty for all but "serious" criminals. Most alien workers use fraudulent or stolen documents to work, drive cars, rent homes. To most of us, identity thefts are "serious" crimes that should automatically exclude eligibility for any form of legal status, let alone a path to citizenship.

So, if you rewarded with "permanent" status only to those who broke into our country maybe 5 or 10 years ago but then actually committed no additional crimes, there might be room to talk. Sure, difficult to prove but they would have pay stubs, rent receipts, and TINs with which they had paid taxes. These would be the ones who most closely demonstrated their desire to be law-abiding immigrants (illegal entry notwithstanding). Of course, there could never be citizenship for these people whose first act on our soil was to begin breaking our laws.

Also, the future children born of two illegal alien parents would no longer be granted citizenship, matching the custom of the vast majority of countries around the world. That, along with jobs, is a powerful magnet.

We'd still want the fence. It's one (necessary) cog in the enforcement machinery, along with workplace raids, arrest and prosecution of employers, and an end to sanctuary policies, that can help repel future illegals. Maybe then we can develop mandatory guest-worker programs that can actually work and be managed.

Illegal alien supporters claim many are hardworking, law-abiding people who have broken no laws beyond breaking into our country. I propose those are the ones we allow to stay.

So there's some give from one very serious illegal alien opponent. What would their supporters give? Come, we need your input, else we continue on our course toward an overpopulation of catastrophic proportions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: franks Posted by: Lauren
» RE: franks Posted by: Old Skeptic
» RE: franks Posted by: MdeG
Son of an immigrant???
Posted by: carolcsme on Aug 28, 2008 6:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Paragraph one identifies Obama as the son of an immigrant. His father was a student, not an immigrant, and there has never been any indication that he ever considered immigration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey, let's make Mexico Iraq on the border!
Posted by: GollyGee on Aug 28, 2008 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, but the problem is far greater and far more complex than Lavato or most of us think.

Anyone using the term "illegal-immigration" today simply does not know what they are talking about. They are living in the past.

What is happening (world-wide) these days is no longer "immigration" but rather mass migration. It is not driven by the search for a better life, but rather a flight from starvation.

This is not just happening in the U.S. since Greece, Spain, Italy, France, England, and Germany are also now being flooded with economic refugees.

A great look at our problem can be found at:

Exodus/Exodo

Be sure and read the comments too. For the most part they are well informed, and you'll be glad you did.

as the US economy slowly slides into oblivion, so will immigration.

No. (Although I agree with most of the rest of what you say Edgar1.) Until the world's poor can make a living at home it is only going to get worse.

(In Preparing for the Twenty-First Century Historian Paul Kennedy warned of these coming mass migrations years ago. (You can get his book for $.01 used on Amazon, so I assume his words weren't much read.)

Stopping the flow of dollars before putting the Mexican economy back on its feet would bring about a disaster for the U.S. every bit as horrendous as our Iraq adventure.

Perhaps a many as 25-30 million Mexican nationals now live in the U.S. (At least half are here legally.) That's roughly the same number of people as the population of Iraq. If Mexico falls into anarchy the violence will spill over into the U.S. just as the current drug wars have.

Remember, NAFTA virtually wiped out Mexican agriculture and brought about this crisis in the first place. We broke the Mexican economy, and as in Iraq, now we own it. It has become our problem, and mass-migration may just be the beginning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Haiti Posted by: Baal_Labs
What reforms?
Posted by: YogiBear on Aug 28, 2008 10:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
other Democrats support a combination of legalization and major reforms,/i>

All I ever hear is bashing of those who support reforms from the likes of y'all. Which is why many suspect you only care for legalization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem is not excessive population, the problem is poverty
Posted by: Squarehead on Aug 29, 2008 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Several posters call for strong measures to deter 'illegal' immigration; or as other posters point out, actual migration.

Calls for birth control completely miss the point; the problem is not excessive population, the problem is poverty. Even 7,000 million (or 9,000 million) humans is not the catastrophe that so many assume. the catastrophe happens with an insufficiency of wealth.

To those who then say I am being naive, consider: all studies show that populations stabilise with sufficient wealth, i.e. when wealth is reasonably equitably distributed thru society. If there is not a sufficiently equal distribution of wealth, then poverty drives population in an exponential spiral upwards, in a self- feeding cycle of environmental and human destruction.

Quite asides from how comfy you or any of us might be if machine-guns & concentration camps were the control mechanism, this practice would not, in any case, work. The diseases consequent on poverty would strike just as fatally at the children of the rich.

The good news is that this program of free access for migration (worldwide) has 'upsides' to it. The good news is that poverty can be alleviated, that wealth is created by access to low cost energy and low cost credit. That democracy is an essential concomitant to it.

You don't believe me? Check out what is happening in energy production; check out the economic performance of the Asian (& other) economies over the past 20 years.

That the small number (< 8,000?) of people who own SERIOUS wealth throughout the world are making a current play of aggrandizment does not have to be the end of the story.

There is going to be a BIG political struggle over the next 10- 40 years over these issues

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Immigration's Affect is to Reduce Equal Distribution of Wealth
Posted by: Vince Coit on Sep 9, 2008 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reduction of the “equal distribution of wealth”, as the previous poster has put it, is the key purpose of high immigration; the secondary labor market supply is flooded, with its indirect but significant affect on all U.S. labor. To suggest that all we have to do is to simultaneously, redistribute wealth to the poor, then, increases in the labor supply, that’s concentrated in low wage work, will be non-problematic is unrealistic. Two things only are sustaining capitalism. One is irresponsible externalization of costs onto the environment, carbon in the air, gunky water, pavement, and row after row of ugly cookie-cutter tract houses (at least in my locale). Second is the decrease of labor cost by oversupply of the secondary labor market, with immigrant labor, and, by reduction of demand for good jobs by outsourcing. This is simple cost accounting. It really is this simple, material cost reduction (externalization) and labor cost reduction is how capitalism is sustained. Looking out on a mid-run time horizon, it isn’t sustainable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]