Getty Images
After a bipartisan group of eight senators unveiled their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform, most proponents of improving the status quo, including President Obama and his team, were delighted. All eyes, however, quickly turned to House Republicans, who've long opposed reform and are in a position to kill it in this Congress.
And so it came as a bit of a surprise when Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), arguably one of the nation's fiercest anti-immigrant voices, issued a statement responding to the Senate plan that read, "I agree with most of the language in the very broad guidelines."
Now, King may be trying to moderate his image in advance of a Senate campaign, or maybe he hopes to sound reasonable before demanding a series of changes to the bipartisan package, but the right-wing congressman's statement served as a reminder that immigration reform stands a reasonably good chance of actually passing Congress this year.
Indeed, John Stanton reported that a bipartisan House group is moving forward with its own plan.
The same day a group of Senators publicly laid out a bipartisan framework for comprehensive immigration reform, Republicans told BuzzFeed that lawmakers in the House are closing in on their own set of immigration reform principles -- and could even produce bipartisan legislation in coming weeks.
While immigration reform has long been considered a bridge too far in the Republican-controlled House, where conservative hold enormous sway, these Republicans insisted the conference understands that the political winds are shifting and a deal could be reached.
"Although we have not seen the legislation text, the principles released today are compatible with the discussions in the House," Rep. Mario Diaz Balart said Monday following the release of the Senate's guidelines for comprehensive reform.
It stands to reason that the House and Senate versions will not be identical, and that the White House plan will probably be more ambitious than both of these plans. The differences will, of course, matter a great deal, and will no doubt be the subject of spirited debates.
But the point is, if the president, House, and Senate are all prepared to act, and they all more or less agree on the general framework, the odds of success are quite high.
Indeed, it was hard to miss the direction of the political winds yesterday. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a very conservative ideologue, was willing to use the word "undocumented" instead of "illegal" at the bipartisan press conference. Meanwhile, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a prominent far-right voice in the lower chamber, changed the meaning of the word "amnesty" -- whereas conservatives have generally used the term to describe any pathway to citizenship, Blackburn said it doesn't apply if undocumented immigrants pay a fine and back taxes.
And it's against this backdrop that a bipartisan group of senators and a bipartisan group of House members separately moved forward on comprehensive plans that roughly follow the blueprint unveiled by President Obama in 2011 (which in turn roughly follows the blueprint endorsed by then-President George W. Bush in 2007).
Even among House Republicans likely to oppose any reform plan, the reactions were relatively muted, and we saw very little hair-on-fire outrage.
For proponents of reform, there's reason for optimism.
Leave a Comment:
But the point is, if the president, House, and Senate are all prepared to act...
...Then the narrative has already been written. A reasonable Senate and President present a plan, the House freaks out, the TPer's get shoved aside, and it passes with majority Dem support.
was willing to use the word "undocumented" instead of "illegal" at the bipartisan press conference. Meanwhile, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a prominent far-right voice in the lower chamber, changed the meaning of the word "amnesty"
The GOP Titanic is sinking, and the crew is re-arranging the deck chairs so they can save face instead of face plant.
Beware the ways of the dark lords of the Sith who snake their interests into seemingly progressive reforms.
This framework mentions "temporary visas". US corporations want a union busting guest worker program, allowing them to push labor conditions of guest workers to as inhumane levels as the market will bear. From the perspective of the 1%, if unemployed US workers wanted those jobs, they could compete for them. If guest workers wanted them, but found the abhorrent working conditions unacceptable, then they are "free" to go home. It's the charming "take it or leave it" pitch of the Ayn Randian social darwinians.
Voila! An immigration bill born of a progressive vision of fairness to Latino Americans transformed into a wet dream of the 1%. Behold yet another Clintonian neoliberal vehicle of accelerating income inequality and the race to the bottom. Here's the Cato institute's response to the union supported solution to this issue in yesterday's Hill. What a shock- they oppose worker protections for Latinos.
Simply because a bill has Immigration in its name does not mean Latinos or progressives should support it without question. Latino working conditions must be humane and these workers must have credible institutional protection of their rights.
I was speaking more to the thrust of the article, which is discussing the demeoner of the various players.
As to the specifics and merits of the various ideas thrown around so far, no doubt it'll be a watered down clusterf#ck of a bill...But at least it will be a start.
Methinks this smacks of political opportunism on the part of the 'Johnny come latelies' who appear to be on board for the photo ops. If I could be convinced that these folks were doing the right thing because that's what we (Americans) do, then I'd have more hope and less cynicism. Largenose equates this to moving the deck chairs on the Titanic, a meaningless activity in the face of the inevitable. He may be right. Caveat empty-heads.
Just more diversionary tactics, take the spotlight off of the republican plan in the States...and to hide the Wall Street fiasco that is starting to see some daylight, we wouldn't want that...then we have THE hecklers...Anyone, ANYONE, who has lost children has every right to speak free of interruption and comment...Those who heckled the father should have to go through the same gut wrenching, unending PAIN...there is no pain greater than having to bury your baby...these folks are not pro-life, they are not even human, I curse them with all that I have and all that I can muster....the republicans and their "base" are cruel and not very smart...the only thing I can agree with the GOP on now is...they are headed to the "dust-bin" of history, and none too soon for that matter...
Let's just hope the final legislation isn't too kludgey! -Kevo
I'll believe when it's signed.
I don't get the whole immigration idea from the perspective of the immigrant.
They say they wanna just get a good life and provide a decent thing for their families but they're doing it illegally.
I'm legally in the country and if I did something illegal, I couldn't say I am doing it for my family's well-being and have the judge take it seriously.
"Hey, I stole a car and robbed a bank. I'm doing it for the security of my family"
I know the immigration folks aren't stealing cars but there are no grades to illegal. It either is or isn't.
Anyway, based on Rachel's comments from last night I gotta say "GO, Jan Brewer. You Veto that bill and veto it hard!"
"There are no grades to illegal. It either is or isn't."
Um... yes, there are grades to illegal, and those grades are reflected by our sentencing laws. Coming here illegally to try to provide for your family isn't as "bad" as stealing a car, and stealing a car isn't as "bad" as killing someone. Our laws and punishments should reflect that reality.
Moreover, if a law doesn't serve the interests of the people, it should be abolished. Law doesn't exist for the sake of itself - it exists to promote the good in society and maintain order so that society can flourish. Deporting immigrants en masse simply for coming here and trying to feed their families doesn't serve society; it wastes tax money, impairs the labor market for low-wage jobs, and ultimately diminishes the diversity of our society, limiting the exchange of ideas and cultures that made America so powerful in the first place.
"Illegal" is an inherently arbitrary definition. We are free to change what falls under that definition, and we are free to change our responses to the actions. For illegal immigration, we should have done that a long time ago.
Future: You are the poster child of right wing politics. I think a leadership role is in the works for you. You perfectly state the right wing mantra of only thinking for yourself, self-interest over society betterment. Be proud...
I'm all in favor of diversity, exchange of ideas and people coming here to help their families and make their lives better.
Call me crazy but I am NOT a fan of the "illegal" part of the term. Why would I be?
That's exactly my point - it's a term, an arbitrary one at that. Yes, it is "illegal" - that doesn't actually mean it's inherently wrong or bad, just as it wasn't inherently wrong for slaves to run from their owners, or for women to vote, or for interracial couples to marry. It's illegal because we say it is, not because it's morally wrong somehow to move to another country and try to make enough money to survive.
So far you've only made the argument that it's "illegal" and therefore they should be punished for doing it; the argument you should be making is why it should be illegal, and why they should be punished, and why deportation is the appropriate way to punish them. "It's wrong because it breaks the law" isn't an argument.
oops
Call me crazy, but for once I actually feel optimistic about American politics. I had serious doubts about the "partisan fever breaking" that Obama said would happen after re-election, but amazingly enough it seems like it's actually happening - in spite of all the bluster from the right, we're seeing forward progress on taxation, the debt ceiling, immigration, gun control... It's tenuous at the moment, but there's real potential here for the government to actually get something done and work for the average American for a change.
Now if we could just hear Obama's proposal on election reform... and please please PLEASE tell me it has something to limit gerrymandering...
To find in Taliban silence there is no objection to immigration reform is laughable. It like to trying to find a black sheet at a Klan meeting
I believe that all the posturing from right-wing ideologues is just a scam. These people don't like brown people in the first place and the current immigrant hysteria is perfect for corporate profiteers. They can pay illegals anything they want, treat them anyway they wish and know that the workers can do nothing about it for fear of deportation. You will never see immigration reform in this country as long as the corporate overlords make more money off of the current state of misery. This whole dog and pony show will result in nothing or maybe even make the situation worse.
The creation of a "Border Security" commission that includes the likes of Jan Brewer and Rick Perry is quite worrisome. If they have the power to never declare the border secure none of the other reforms will ever get implemented. Their role needs to be advisory at best. Also, the path to citizenship seems to be quite cumbersome and bureaucratic and could discourage many undocumented workers from even applying. I also take issue with these workers being required pay a fine and back taxes. It seems improbable that most can come up with the cash thereby creating yet another obstacle. These restrictions need to be eliminated from the final legislation.
first illegal immigrants to the US: 1492.
I see brown people..(/snark)
All this noise and photo ops are a win-win for the Republicans. And a bonanza for Rubio! A lot of media attention for the maverick team! And at the end of the day, nothing needs be delivered. These leaders are not able to bring along their party's base, as any reform smells of amnesty. And the base is allergic to immigrants. Republicans working to potentially increase Democrat rolls?
Rubio only represents latinos in the mind of non-latinos. As latinos look deeper into the proposal, details get increasingly vague and discouraging.
The best thing you could say about the proposal, it is a bipartisan first step.
Frontera @ bordercrossingstories.blogspot.com
Sadly Harry Reid give away that chip the other day. The Republians will make sure that vote take 60 votes to pass any such immigration reform.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/25/harry-reid-s-filibuster-deal-with-mitch-mcconnell-isn-t-reform.html