Immigration Laws in an Election Year
Immigration reform is now before the Senate. Several versions of the reform have been thrown into the mix, but it is clear that this hot-button issue will be warming the 2006 elections and will provide a focus for the 2008 presidential race. The Emperor has already presented his proposal, which primarily focuses on a Guest Worker program. The House has already passed a bill which primarily focuses on building an impermeable wall along the border and criminalising aiding and abetting illegal immigrants by feeding them and giving them medical treatment. That's the split: big business conservatives vs. social conservatives. And that's just on the Republican side. Elisabeth Bumiller has an analytical piece in today's NY Times.
In the days before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, immigration policy was going to be President Bush's signature issue. It was central to his thinking as the former governor of a border state, key to his relationship with President Vicente Fox of Mexico and essential in attracting new Hispanic voters to the Republican Party.
Five years later, Mr. Bush has at last realized some momentum on immigration policy, but it is probably not the activity he once anticipated.
He has lost control of his own party on the issue, as many Republicans object to his call for a temporary guest-worker program, insisting instead that the focus be on shutting down the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. It is not clear how much help he will get from Democrats in an election year.
The issue will come to the floor of the Senate next week, and the debate is shaping up as a free-for-all that will touch on economics, race and national identity.
...The discussion has intensified as Mr. Bush finds himself caught between two of his most important constituencies: business owners and managers on the one hand, conservatives on the other.
Philosophically, the president, whose own sensibility on the issue was shaped by his experience as governor of Texas, says he is committed to a program that meets the needs of business: the creation of a pool of legal foreign workers for industries that have come to rely on low-wage labor.
Mr. Bush also brings to the debate a stated belief that the country benefits from the immigration of hardworking people and their dreams of becoming Americans. He often talks about the United States as a land of immigrants, and on Monday in Cleveland he said that "my only advice for the Congress and for people in the debate is, understand what made America."
But politically, Mr. Bush must satisfy his most conservative supporters. Many of them view illegal immigration as a strain on schools, the health care system and the economy, and some have warned that in their opinion the nation's cultural identity could be washed away by a flood of low-income Spanish-speaking workers. [Emphasis added]
I find it interesting that the two sides described by Bumiller both are both rooted in the notion that somehow those from Mexico and the rest of Latin American are somehow 'less than' the citizens of the US. They are, on the one hand, a useful source of "low-wage labor" and, on the other hand, a strain on the economy and could "wash away the nation's cultural identity." It's not too difficult to see the inherent racism on either side of the argument.
Noticeably missing from the debate are two considerations: actually securing our borders in such a fashion that terrorists cannot just stroll in and providing a way for those who are already here and those who will be coming in the future (new system or not) to become permanent residents and ultimately US citizens. I suppose it being an election year, those considerations aren't important. They would require appealing to the better nature of the nation, a nation built by and comprised of immigrants.
In the days before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, immigration policy was going to be President Bush's signature issue. It was central to his thinking as the former governor of a border state, key to his relationship with President Vicente Fox of Mexico and essential in attracting new Hispanic voters to the Republican Party.
Five years later, Mr. Bush has at last realized some momentum on immigration policy, but it is probably not the activity he once anticipated.
He has lost control of his own party on the issue, as many Republicans object to his call for a temporary guest-worker program, insisting instead that the focus be on shutting down the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. It is not clear how much help he will get from Democrats in an election year.
The issue will come to the floor of the Senate next week, and the debate is shaping up as a free-for-all that will touch on economics, race and national identity.
...The discussion has intensified as Mr. Bush finds himself caught between two of his most important constituencies: business owners and managers on the one hand, conservatives on the other.
Philosophically, the president, whose own sensibility on the issue was shaped by his experience as governor of Texas, says he is committed to a program that meets the needs of business: the creation of a pool of legal foreign workers for industries that have come to rely on low-wage labor.
Mr. Bush also brings to the debate a stated belief that the country benefits from the immigration of hardworking people and their dreams of becoming Americans. He often talks about the United States as a land of immigrants, and on Monday in Cleveland he said that "my only advice for the Congress and for people in the debate is, understand what made America."
But politically, Mr. Bush must satisfy his most conservative supporters. Many of them view illegal immigration as a strain on schools, the health care system and the economy, and some have warned that in their opinion the nation's cultural identity could be washed away by a flood of low-income Spanish-speaking workers. [Emphasis added]
I find it interesting that the two sides described by Bumiller both are both rooted in the notion that somehow those from Mexico and the rest of Latin American are somehow 'less than' the citizens of the US. They are, on the one hand, a useful source of "low-wage labor" and, on the other hand, a strain on the economy and could "wash away the nation's cultural identity." It's not too difficult to see the inherent racism on either side of the argument.
Noticeably missing from the debate are two considerations: actually securing our borders in such a fashion that terrorists cannot just stroll in and providing a way for those who are already here and those who will be coming in the future (new system or not) to become permanent residents and ultimately US citizens. I suppose it being an election year, those considerations aren't important. They would require appealing to the better nature of the nation, a nation built by and comprised of immigrants.
posted by Diane at 3:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home