Gee, We Might Want To Use That Filibuster Thing
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in ImmigrationSenate GOPers are set to filibuster the House’s immigration plan because Dems won’t allow amendments to the bill.
From Wash Times:
Senate Republicans will filibuster their own immigration bill today in the face of steadfast refusal by Democrats to allow amendments to the bill that many conservatives view as granting amnesty to illegal aliens.As an alternative, Majority Leader Bill Frist reached an agreement last night with fellow Republicans on a new comprehensive immigration plan that includes increasing border security and a guest-worker plan, but still does not resolve concerns about amnesty.
The new plan would allow illegal aliens who have been in the United States for more than five years to remain in the country working while applying for U.S. citizenship. Those who have been here between two and five years would have to apply for citizenship at a point of entry, but could remain working. Anyone here for less than two years would have to leave the country, but they could still apply for citizenship from their home country.
The article is interesting as it spends nearly all of its time pointing out that Harry Reid introduced strong anti-immigration legislation back in 1993. However, he’s already disavowed that legislation as wrong headed.
Take a look. Interesting stuff going on. I’m not sure what to make of all of it. Me, I still think we need to fix the border problem before we can think about ANY real reform we have to stem that flow of illegals into this country.
Frequent commentor Bob Aman points to a Financial Times article yesterday that makes the point much better than I:
That Congress, in general, and Republicans, in particular, should be divided is unsurprising. Business and the wealthy favour immigration, while nationalists and the less well off oppose it. It is also unsurprising that neither set of proposals is likely to work: where interests in favour of inaction are strong, the appearance of action will almost always be preferred to the reality. It will prove practically and politically impossible to repatriate hundreds of thousands of guest workers and their families. Equally, any amnesty for existing illegal workers guarantees the entry of new ones. But no fence is going to stop aspirant immigrants either, unless it is built and operated along lines made notorious by the late and unlamented East Germany.
I don’t agree with that very last part, but I do agree we need to start getting a lot tougher with border security. Some will probably see much tougher security as Draconian, but sometimes if you want to stop a big problem, you need to put big resources behind it. Only then can we start talking in earnest about any type of amensty, etc.
And one last thought from FT on what sitting our hands might do to us as a country:
In making the case for either controlling immigration or compensating the native-born for its impact, the wider context must be remembered. The opening of world trade is eliminating opportunities for production of labour-intensive tradeable goods and services in high-income countries. Employment of the native-born unskilled must increasingly be in non-tradeable activities. If unskilled immigrants drive down wages for such jobs, too, a hapless underclass will inevitably emerge.
What do you think we should do?
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 6th, 2006 and is filed under Immigration. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 6th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I think you are focusing on the wrong part of the problem. The main problem with immigration, as it is for the drug trade, isn’t so much the supply of workers or drugs, rather the main problem is the demand. That is why our anti-drug effort has failed so miserably, because we have refused to address demand in our own country. Similarly, when it comes to immigration, they come because there are plenty of job opportunities for them here in the states, many people (including anti-immigrant activists) hire them to do jobs other Americans wouldn’t do at the price. For example, there was a documentary where a contractor, who rallied against immigrants and who wanted legislation punishing them and kicking them out of the country, actually hired them in his role as a contractor building model communities out west. When confronted, he saw no problem with “exploiting� illegal aliens, and somehow could not understand how it was that his hiring them made it possible for them to want to come into the country in the first place. So, to address the immigration problem we need to target everyone who employs illegal immigrants, from fast food chains to Wal-Mart levying fines appropriate to the offense. At the same time, we have to deal with those who are already here, and who are employed. To do so we need a process whereby they can attain legal status because the alternative is that they remain outside of the legal economy, and fail to integrate into our country leaving us in a similar position as Europe is in with its Muslim migrants, which as we saw earlier this year is a hotbed of extremism. The house bill fails in the most important aspects, mainly providing a way to process the immigrants already here.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I definitely agree that we need to strengthen our borders and solve the problem of the incoming illegals before we get to the illegals that are already here. Otherwise, while we are chasing them down, more and more people will continue to pour in. I also hearily agree that we need to put a stop to employers who hire illegals for cheap. As far as border security is concerned, how hard is it to hire thousands of men and station them closer together along the borders. Maybe drum up a more improved processing system, update the computers, whatever. It doesn’t seem like we need to build a huge wall or do anything else radical. I think that if our borders are not secure, that is our government’s fault, and they need to make it more of a priority.
As far as people who are already here, I’m just not sure how we’re going to “find them” and kick them out. Isn’t that the law now? It seems to me that the failings of our immigration laws are due to mostly human error, which will still be present no matter what new laws you enact. Let’s just let people become legal, in a way that doesn’t devastate our economy. Isn’t it really about money anyway?
April 8th, 2006 at 4:59 am
I agree that raising legal sanctions on those who import and exploit immigrant labor, creating paths to legal status and citizenship, opening up more opportunities for legal immigration, and making our border security more effective and efficient are necessary elements of a solution. I propose one short-term element and one long-term solution, as well. For the short term, we should seek to rebalance our labor laws away from their extreme pro-management tilt. By recognizing the right to organize as protected under the First Amendment, we give workers a tool to negotiate terms and conditions of employment on their own, without the need for government interference except to resolve disputes that labor and management can’t settle on their own. In essence, we use workers as a check on management’s desire for cheap labor, which would serve to reduce “pull” factors and also raise wages for all low-skill workers.
My more radical solution is to issue a new “world-wide welcome” (see the opening of Emma Lazarus’s “The New Colossus”) and invite nation-states around the world to hold referenda on whether they should petition the US Congress for entry into the union following principles laid out in Article Four, Section III of the US Constitution. We seem to have figured out how to handle interstate commerce and internal migrations, so why not consider expanding our borders (through democratic, not imperialist means, I hasten to add–this is anot a call for annexation!) rather than closing them?