They're Everywhere!

(Cartoon by Jim Morin, published 7/1/14 in the Miami Herald and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then please return.)
President Obama has caved in once again.  Rather than lean on Congress to get a reasonable and humane immigration bill passed, he's decided to increase the budget for detention centers.  Wouldn't want those pesky aliens mixing in with the real people, eh?

From McClatchy DC:

President Barack Obama asked Congress on Tuesday for $3.7 billion to help cope with the influx of unaccompanied children illegally crossing the southern border.

The money will pay for additional border patrol agents, more beds at detention centers, an increase in prosecution of smuggling networks and a media campaign to discourage parents from sending their children on what the White House calls a “dangerous journey.”

The administration described its approach as an aggressive and cost effective response across the federal government that will allow the United States to try to prevent and more quickly process the

 cases.  [Emphasis added] 

Now, I can sort of (kind of) understand the concern being expressed by President Obama with this latest influx of "border runners."  They are mostly young kids, being shipped by their parents, often without any family members to accompany them, only hopes and prayers for their children's future.  I share the concern, as I'm certain most people do, that this is no way to provide for those kids' future. 

And , as one of my fellow residents here at the Cuckoo's Nest pointed out, there is more going on here than those kids' future.  He thinks that it's a diversionary move by the drug cartels in Central America and Mexico.  While the US Border Patrol is busy dealing with these bus loads of children, they aren't paying attention to the smugglers both above and below ground. He may be right.

Even so, surely there is a better way to handle the issue.  For one thing, the US government could put some pressure on Mexican and Central American governments to do their parts in clamping down on the drug cartels and their growers. 

Another thing the US government could do is change our ridiculous drug laws, the way many states are beginning to do.  Legalize marijuana and tax it the way alcohol and tobacco are taxed. That would be a good start and might ease not only smuggling problems but also our prison crowding.  As to other drugs, well, I haven't completely made up my mind, but it seems to me that adults should be allowed to pick their poison.

At any rate, I would love to see a more sensible border policy.  Maybe even during my life time.  Know what I mean?

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/08/232634/obama-requests-37b-for-additional.html#storylink=cpy 

They Still Don't Get It

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 6/16/13 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.)

It became even clearer after the Sunday talk shows that we won't get an immigration bill out of this Congress.  From McClatchy DC:

Republican House leaders reiterated their opposition Sunday to the immigration bill passed by the Senate last week, highlighting the uncertain prospects for enacting a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws.

"The Senate bill is not going to pass in the House," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said on CNN's "State of the Union," echoing statements made by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other senior Republican lawmakers. ...

Boehner has said that he will not bring up an immigration bill for a vote that does not have the support of the majority of the Republican House caucus.

And the reason stated is that there isn't enough of a guarantee of border security to stop the flow of new immigrants in the Senate bill, even though that bill would extend the border fence and increase the number of border agents and drones to do just that.  I think the real reason is that the Tea Partiers don't like the fact that the Senate bill allows a path to citizenship for those "illegals" already here.  The fact that the path to citizenship is so draconian as to be almost impossible to trod doesn't matter.  It's still "amnesty" to their way of thinking.

Will it come back to haunt the GOP?

Certainly.  If not in 2014, then certainly in 2016.  The demographics (see Mike Luckovich's cartoon above) are just too clear.

Some folks are just too stupid to see the light.  In fact, they might just be too stupid to find their way home.

A Bigger Wall

(Editorial cartoon by Jim Morin / Miami Herald (June 14, 2013) and featured at McClatchy DC.)

The Senate passed an immigration bill yesterday, one that has been in the works for months.  Some moderate Republicans worked with Democrats to craft the bill, and while it's not the greatest, it does provide a framework for those undocumented workers already here to attain citizenship.  In that regard, it's a step forward.

From the Los Angeles Times:

The Senate was on track to approve a sweeping immigration overhaul Thursday, but the landmark legislation has dim hopes in the GOP-controlled House despite drawing significant Republican support with the addition of $46 billion in border security.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has no immediate plans to consider the legislation, in large part because it would provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants in the country without legal status, which his GOP majority opposes. House Republicans are drafting their own bills. ...

Senate Republicans have split over the bill that was crafted by a bipartisan group that included one of their upcoming leaders, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a potential presidential hopeful.

Some see the legislation as important in their outreach to Latino voters, but for many Republicans, the measure's unprecedented “border surge” of drones, troops and fencing along the boundary with Mexico did not convince them future illegal immigration would diminish.

The Senate’s top Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, voted no.

“It’s with a great deal of regret, for me at least, that the final bill didn’t turn out to be something I can support,” McConnell said. “If you can’t be reasonably certain that the border is secure as a condition of legalization, there’s just no way to be sure that millions more won’t follow the illegal immigrants who are already here.” ...

Under the legislation, immigrants would be able to transition to legal permanent resident status with green cards in 10 years, once the border has been bolstered with 24-hour drones, 20,000 new Border Patrol officers and 700 miles of fence, among other measures. They must also have paid fines and fees, know English and be in good standing after undergoing background checks.

Because 40% of the immigrants in the country illegally did not cross borders but stayed on expired visas, a new visa exit system would be required at all major airports.   [Emphasis added]

The sticking point with many Senate Republicans and with most House Republicans is, of course, the idea that some of those already here might receive "amnesty" for the misdeed of entering the country illegally or overstaying a visa.  Even those brought here as young children aren't entitled to the "dream" of being able to stay without fear of summary deportation.

And that border fence?  Well, let's just say that it's one of the few bits of proposed legislation coming out of this Congress that has some actual job creation embedded into it.

Of course, the House Republicans are having none of it.  They intend to craft their own bill(s) which in all likelihood will never even come to a vote if Boehner continues to operate under the Hastert Rule of not bringing up an legislation which will not pass.  Anything more draconian than the Senate bill will not pass.

Still, at least moderate Republicans have something to point at when election time rolls around as evidence of reaching out to Hispanics.  It ain't much, but it's something.

Note:  The text of the bill in pdf is located here.

Facing Which Direction?

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published in the Atlanta Journal Consitution April 26, 2012.  Click on image to enlarge, and then be good enough to return.)

Sometimes the editorial board of the Washington Post gets it right, and this is one of those times.

AT ABORTION clinics, the presence of awnings, the width of doorways and the dimensions of janitorial closets have little to do with the health of patients. But by requiring that Virginia’s 20 abortion clinics conform to strict licensing standards designed for new hospitals, the state has ensured that many or most of them will be driven out of business in the coming months. ...

...According to a survey by the state Health Department, just one of the 19 surviving clinics meets the requirements. Fifteen of the remaining facilities estimated their combined costs of compliance at $14.5?million.

Some of the clinics, including those operated by Planned Parenthood, which has a national fundraising network, will survive. Many others, which are run as small businesses, probably will not. Most have no means to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to widen corridors, install state-of-the-art surgical sinks and expand parking lots.

What’s more, the upgrades they face are arbitrary manifestations of the state’s overweening power. Other types of walk-in clinics, including those that perform oral and cosmetic surgery, are unaffected by the regulations. ...

Regulation is essential for all health services. But there is no evidence that unsanitary conditions or slapdash procedures are common at abortion clinics in Virginia nor that women who seek services from them are at risk. The state’s assault on women’s reproductive rights is an ideological crusade masquerading as concern for public health.   [Emphasis added]

Exactly so.

The Republican  Party continues to claim it is returning to its roots, that it has much to offer minorities and immigrants and women, but those claims are usually offset by its basest base:  Limbaugh, the Tea Partiers, the Religious Reich.  So who are we to believe?

I guess we'll have to wait until 2014 to find out.

Uncivil War

Earlier this week, David Horsey took a look at the CPAC conference and noted the rather dramatic split in the Republican Party.  The basest base wants to maintain the purity of a party for the rich and white, while the rest of the party would like to start winning elections.

A new report commissioned by the Republican National Committee reads like an anti-GOP critique from the “lame stream media.” It describes the party as too rigidly ideological, too in thrall to greedy corporations, too disconnected from nonwhite and young voters, and in desperate need of new ideas. ...

Since the Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh wing of the party was clearly not represented on the committee, it may not be surprising that conservative purists sustained the biggest hit in the report. Still, the fact that the five took suggestions from 50,000 rank-and-file party members gives the report some weight. And the authors would have been fools if they had ignored information gathered from focus groups that indicates a great many Americans perceive Republicans as a bunch of narrow-minded, out-of-touch, homophobic, stuffy old white men who are interested only in the welfare of rich people. ...

CPAC actually provided a vivid example of the fevered, insular mindset that the RNC committee sees as a huge problem for the party. “The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself," the committee’s report says. "We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.”

Yet, while the RNC is saying it is time to open the doors to new people and new ideas, the lineup of CPAC speakers was composed almost entirely of insular ideologues, gay-bashers, gun fetishists, religious fundamentalists, birth control foes and devotees of wacky conspiracy theories. CPAC stars such as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Allen West, Donald Trump and the National Rifle Assn.'s Wayne LaPierre do not represent a new direction for the GOP; they represent exactly what the Republican National Committee is warning against.    [Emphasis added]

One wag at Eschaton suggested that CPAC stood for "Crazy People Acting Crazy," and I think that summarizes it nicely.  Recent polls show that a majority of Americans want better background checks for gun purchases, have no problems with gay marriage, and are in favor of immigration reform even if it provides a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants already here.  That the Republican Party wants to tap into those majorities for votes makes perfect sense. But Palin and Rush are not about to give up, at least not yet.

If the RNC report is ignored and the Tea Party activists continue to hold a knife against the throat of the rest of the party, the GOP may find itself shut out all over the country the way it was shut out in California in 2012. 

And wouldn't that be a shame.

This Is Getting Interesting

[Note:  I'm having some financial problems right now.  I know my timing is atrocious, given all the fund raisers lately, but if you can spare a little more, please donate to my "catfood for me and Home Boy" fund.  Thank you.]

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 12/30/12 by the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

I know, I know:  I'm harping on immigration a lot these days.  It's just that a lot of stuff is unfolding right now that I find quite interesting (and, truth be told, amusing).

First of all, in addition to the bipartisan group of senators who have crafted the broad outlines of an immigration bill, apparently there is a bipartisan group of House members doing the same thing:

A secretive group of House members from both parties is racing to complete an immigration bill in the next two weeks with an eye toward introducing legislation before President Obama’s State of the Union address on Feb. 12, said two congressional aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.

The draft bill, written behind closed doors by three Democrats and three Republicans, so far includes a path to legal status, new border security measures and tighter restrictions on employers. It tracks closely with the blueprint laid out by the bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday, said the aides. ...

Congressional aides confirmed that along with Diaz-Balart, Republicans John Carter and Sam Johnson, both of Texas, are part of the group, with Democrats Luis V. Gutierrez of Illinois, Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, and the chairman of the House Democratic caucus, Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles.

Gutierrez said in a statement that he has been a part of “very constructive conversations with my House colleagues in both parties,” adding that he is confident that “we are poised for action and not just more talk on immigration reform.” He would not confirm that he is part of the group. ...

Like the senators’ framework announced Tuesday, the draft of the House bill allows most of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country to apply for probationary legal status and contains border security and enforcement milestones that immigrants must meet before they can become lawful permanent residents. Unlike the Senate proposal, the House version does not set up a commission to certify that the border is secure.

One detail that has not been worked out yet between the House members is exactly how illegal immigrants who have been granted legal status will be allowed to apply for lawful permanent residence – a green card – and later, to apply for full citizenship.   [Emphasis added]

As I noted yesterday, one of the problems will be sealing (or, I guess, "securing" is the preferred term) the borders.  Who gets to decide that and what exactly do they mean.  People noticed that little problem. 

The fate of 11 million people could hinge on the interpretation of border security.

An immigration-reform blueprint by a bipartisan group of senators includes a path to U.S. citizenship for those who are in the country illegally. But the blueprint, released Monday, specifies that the federal government must first certify that the U.S.-Mexico border is secure.

Immigrant rights groups fear that millions of people will be in limbo until the security threshold appeases those dissatisfied with the border's status. ...

Pat Sexton, president of the Tucson chapter of the Arizona Latino Republican Association, said securing the northern and southern borders will keep out  those seeking to cross illegally once word gets out about the possibility of  legal residency.

“But define securing the border. That’s going to be so politically difficult to do,” Sexton said.  [Emphasis added]

And now the president has weighed in on the issue, although what precisely he wants is still not exactly clear:

 Details on how to achieve a pathway to citizenship still could prove to be a major sticking point between the White House and the Senate group, which is comprised of eight lawmakers - four Democrats and four Republicans.

Obama and the Senate lawmakers all want to require people here illegally to register with the government, pass criminal and national security background checks, pay fees and penalties as well as back taxes, and wait until existing immigration backlogs are cleared before getting in line for green cards. After reaching that status, U.S. law says people can become citizens after five years.

The Senate proposal says that entire process couldn't start until the borders were fully secure and tracking of people in the U.S. on visas had improved. Those vague requirements would almost certainly make the timeline for achieving citizenship longer than what the White House is proposing.

The president urged lawmakers to avoid making the citizenship pathway so difficult that it would appear out of reach for many illegal immigrants.

And that's where we are right now.

What I suspect will happen is that a bill will be sent to the president.  What I also suspect is that it won't have a realistic pathway to citizenship for those already here.  It will be just enough for the GOP to wave their hands excitedly and to shout "Huzzah!  See!  We do care about our Hispanic Brothers!  Now, vote for us!"

Because, after all, this is really what it's all about.

False Start?

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 1/29/13 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge and then please wander back.)

It isn't often I read Doyle McManus two days running, but I was curious as to what he would have to say now that we know a little more about the immigration reform law being considered by the bipartisan group of senators.  He's quite cheered by the move.  Me?  Eh, not so much. 

McManus seemed both surprised and pleased that the GOP is even willing to work on the issue.

Only a year ago, Republican presidential hopefuls were competing to show how tough on immigration they could be. Mitt Romney won that dubious contest by denouncing the Dream Act, which would have provided legal status for some children of illegal immigrants, and calling for tough policies that would induce immigrants to “self-deport.”

Poor Gov. Romney: After his defeat, his own party has suddenly concluded that sounding hostile toward immigrants is bad politics, especially when Latinos and Asians constitute a growing part of the electorate. Who knew?

There’s still plenty of opposition among GOP voters to increased immigration in general and any reform that smacks of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants in particular. It won’t be easy getting comprehensive immigration reform through the conservative-majority House.

Given House Speaker Boehner's success in getting the debt ceiling pushed off for a couple of months, and given Paul Ryan's indication that the GOP needs immigration reform to remain "viable", I think it likely that some kind of bill could be passed.  The question is, however, whether such a bill would make any difference to the millions of undocumented people already here.

From what I gather from "unofficial" reports, the benefits would only kick in once the border was effectively sealed.  Presumably the Mexican border is what is meant.  That doesn't take into account those people who entered the country legally via visas (tourist or student) and simply overstayed their visits.  And how do we know when our border is effectively sealed?  Who decides?

And a path to citizenship would require paying a fine and paying back taxes.  How big a fine and how far back?  That's pretty weak soup for calling it amnesty.

At this point, the bill seems to favor the students from abroad who get advanced degrees from American universities in subjects such as science and engineering.  The rest of the foreigners would have to be satisfied with a bracero-like program.

While I am pleased to see some movement on a long-overdue issue, I'm not so sure this is moving in the right direction.  I hope the Democrats don't get too invested in this approach.

Things That Make Me Chuckle

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 12/30/12 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge and then kindly return.)

President Obama has taken the oath of office and been sworn in for his second term, has walked down Pennsylvania Avenue, and delivered what by all accounts was a fine speech.  Now the hard part comes:  presidenting.

He still has to deal with a split Congress, but this time around he has taken some pretty strong stands and has thrown multiple issues to be resolved into the mix.  Gun control, debt ceiling, deficit cuts, and immigration:  and those are just for openers.  The Republicans can't very well continue the blatant obstruction.  They failed in their drive to limit Obama to just one term and they lost ground in both the Senate and the House.  Even with their fear of being primaried by the Tea Party and extreme right wing, the saner members of the party know that they could lose the House in 2014 if they don't at least look like they're trying resolve the nation's problems in a rational, adult way.

And those saner members are beginning to speak out.  The latest blast is on immigration reform which would allow for some kind of  (gasp!) "amnesty."  The Los Angeles Times thought the story was significant enough that it was yesterday's front page headline in the print edition.

Traditional pillars of the Republican base, such as police groups, evangelical pastors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have begun to push skeptical GOP lawmakers to change federal immigration laws to allow most of the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants to apply for legal status.

The issue has long been fought mostly between Republicans and Democrats. But the fate of a potential immigration overhaul may be determined by battles erupting inside the GOP.

"Now it's conservatives versus conservatives over how much immigration reform should happen," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington that has advanced a free-market argument for opening up the immigration system. ...

Some national Christian organizations, law enforcement officials and business leaders have begun coordinating a national campaign to convince voters that immigration reform can be consistent with conservative values. Gathering in Washington last week, leaders of several groups said the goal is to help Republicans in Congress who fear being voted out of office if they support legal status for illegal immigrants.   [Emphasis added]

California Republicans have been begging for this for four years now.  They have been effectively shut out of state government because of the nasty stance on immigration their candidates felt compelled to take. And the demographics of the country, supported by the 2010 Census, have shifted.  There are more Latinos who are "legal" and who vote and who have been voting for Democrats because of the Republicans' refusal to be flexible when it comes to a path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented people already here.  And that's why the sudden interest in reform:

"Republicans need to change now because the country is changing," said Nowrasteh, the immigration expert at the Cato Institute. "It is self preservation as well."   [Emphasis added]

You think maybe?

Excuse me while I chuckle.

Up Next, Number 113

(Editorial cartoon by Glenn McCoy / Belleville News-Democrat (January 2, 2013) and featured at McClatchy DC.)

No, I've not posted a Glenn McCoy cartoon to make fun of it.  He may be a conservative, but I think his cartoon captures the essence of the last few days nicely.  Neither side should be pleased by the lazy, shoddy legislating going on in Washington.  The best they could manage was to repair a u-joint fixture leak with plumber's putty and a shrug.  It also helped that his rendering of what I'm sure he intended as a "pink Cadillac" looks more like a "pink Mercedes," but that's an aesthetic opinion.

The 112th Congress finally is over, but not until it kicked the can on all sorts of issues to the next Congress.  The deal made might have made Wall Street happy (and judging from yesterday's numbers, it made Wall Street very happy), but the rest of us are pretty much disgusted.  I don't imagine that bad taste will improve over the next two years, but I would love to be wrong.  Just the first six months of the new Congress are going to be daunting.  Here's what it looks like the 113th Congress will be facing the first several months of its session.

First 60-90 Days:

Thanks to the fiscal cliff deal, the "deficit" cuts are front and center.  The Republicans want cuts, deep cuts, because ... well, because deficits.  Deficits don't matter when the GOP runs the government, but you can bet they do when the Democrats have the White House and one chamber of Congress.  The GOP wants cuts, deep cuts, to government spending, but only that spending which benefits the 99% of us.  That means Social Security (chained CPI) and Medicare/Medicaid (raising age for eligibility, lowering funds for the destitute seeking medical treatment) are on the line.  So is funding for education, the EPA, Department of Transportation, and (of course) PBS.  The Defense Department budget can't be touched because, well, defense.  And certain parts of the Department of Homeland Security can't be touched because, well, terror.

What our president and our Democrats will do is hard to tell, but so far, the "conceder-in-chief" and the DLC Dems seem willing to sell us out on all sorts of issues.

Of course, there's also the issue of the debt ceiling, about which I spoke yesterday.  The Republicans have already indicated that will be their point of attack, their wedge.  It didn't work out so well the last time they used it, but that won't stop them from trying it again.  And again.

Hurricane Sandy relief also will be a major issue early in the session, primarily because House Speaker Boehner refused to put it up for a vote before the 112th Congress left town.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and NY Congressman Peter King (both Republicans) raised enough holy hell over this that Boehner has promised to bring the bill up for a vote immediately.  Of course, come this afternoon, Boehner may no longer be the House Speaker, so it's hard to tell whether that $60 billion request will be considered.

Next 60-90 Days:

The next set of issues will have to be heard, although not necessarily disposed of in deference to the above.  As I noted earlier in the week, our congress critters are not long on multitasking skills.  Still, the Democrats do have a couple of pressing issues which they need to at least introduce. 

The whole "fiscal cliff" meme has clogged the national discourse, pushing a couple of issues out of sight of the voters.  One important issue which has disappeared from view is that of gun control.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein has promised to submit a bill which at least reinstates the prior assault weapons ban in mid-January.  Some of my liberal friends worry that the issue has faded from the national consciousness because of all the hot coverage of economic issues.  My gut feeling is that by mid-March we will have had at least one more mass shooting incident to rev up national consciousness.  That would fit with our recent history.  And isn't that a shame.

The other issue which the White House will hopefully do some serious leaning on is that of immigration reform.  Various immigration groups have begun to lean on the White House, especially since those groups turned out their people (now a serious demographic in this country) in 2012.  The White House has responded by easing up on some of its enforcement policies, and, most recently, has tried to find a way to return deported family members to the US so that their presence is legal.  That's a start, but it still leaves the future of ten million undocumented people in the country in limbo.  This needs to be addressed.

That's only the first six months of what the 113th Congress faces, but, assuming it can be more productive than the 112th Congress (which wouldn't be all that difficult if our congress critters were held to the same productivity rules as the rest of us), that's the bare minimum of what we should expect over the next two years.

I have to admit that while all of this plays out, I am going to spend at least part of my time reveling in the fact that pitchers and catchers will report for Spring Training in less than two months.  I have my limits.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/12/31/178687/mcclatchy-cartoons-for-the-week.html#storylink=cpy

But Can They Multitask?

(Editorial cartoon by Ted Rall and published 12/27/12 in the Los Angeles Times.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

So, unless something very dramatic happens, the 113th Congress will start with dealing with the fiscal cliff and with a review of gun control legislation.  Both are contentious issues and will no doubt fill the air with ink and electrons.  The question I have is whether the new congress will be able to deal with any other issues in the next two years, issues which Barack Obama promised would be handled back in 2008, issues which are long overdue.  The one I'm thinking about right now is immigration reform

The window to pass immigration laws next year is narrowing as the effort competes with a renewed debate over gun laws and the lingering fight over taxes and the budget, according to congressional staffers and outside advocates.

Key congressional committees are preparing for a package of gun control laws to be negotiated and possibly introduced in Congress during the first few months of next year. The shift would push the debate in Congress over immigration reform into the spring.

But as budget negotiations continue to stir tensions between Republicans and Democrats, and as lobbyists take to their corners over gun laws, some are concerned that the heated atmosphere could spoil the early signs of bipartisan cooperation on immigration that emerged after the election. ...

The crowded agenda has not changed plans by advocacy groups to launch a nationwide publicity and lobbying campaign early next year to put pressure on lawmakers to support changing immigration laws.

"As horrific as the tragedy was in Connecticut, in the grand scheme of things, these issues can run on parallel tracks," said Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, a think tank based in Washington.

"They are not in competition; they are complementary," said Angela Kelley, an expert on immigration at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington. "The White House can walk and chew gum, as can lawmakers."

"If [lawmakers] are working 40 hours a week, they should be able to get both done," she said.

Asking our lawmakers to work 40 hours a week may be expecting a wee too much.  After all, they have to go home every weekend to make sure their constituents remember who they are and their donors are kept advised.  Still, even with a 32-hour work week and a little common sense, a sensible immigration law could be crafted and passed, especially now that the GOP has seen the national demographics.

That said, I'm still not optimistic.

A Nod And A Wink

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 11/27/12 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Click on image to enlarge and then please come back.)

Most of the news concerning the lame-duck Congress these days has to do with the looming "fiscal cliff" and the apocalypse which will happen if something isn't done RIGHT NOW.  But some of the cannier Republicans, mindful of the solid trouncing they just took in the election, have finally decided their party needs to reach out to the Hispanic vote.  Of course, they are not proposing anything substantive right now, just making noises as if they were.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Three Republican senators introduced an alternative to the Dream Act on Tuesday that would give legal status to young immigrants brought to the U.S. unlawfully as children.

Later this week, the House is expected to vote on a bill that would increase the number of visas for technology jobs, while reducing other legal immigration.

But these efforts are unlikely to become law and amount to little more than political showboating. ...

Retiring Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) introduced the Achieve Act on Tuesday. The bill, also sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), appeared to be an attempt to take some heat off Republicans on immigration.

In a news conference, Hutchison said she believed it would be better to tackle small pieces of immigration reform one at a time because agreement on a large package had proven too difficult.

Fewer young immigrants would qualify under her proposal than would have been eligible under the Dream Act. Unlike the Dream Act, the GOP bill would not guarantee a pathway to citizenship.

Under the Republican proposal, applicants who were brought to the U.S. before age 14 could apply for student visas if they are under 29 and enrolled in a college-degree program in the U.S. Applicants under 32 would qualify if they already held a degree from an American college.

After college graduation, immigrants could apply for work visas that would be renewable every four years for the rest of their lives. Unlike the Dream Act, the bill doesn't guarantee permanent residency. If an employer or a family member sponsored them, they could get in line for a green card and eventually apply for citizenship.   [Emphasis added]

How very serious a proposal.

Of course, it is made by two senators who are retiring and have nothing to lose and one senator who will still be on Sunday talk shows leaking at the mouth no matter what happens for the rest of his life.  But it is intended to show the public that the GOP cares, it really cares about Hispanics.

Yeah, right.  And my real name is Marie and I'm the Queen of Rumania.

To be fair, as the article points out, there has been some bipartisan conferencing about immigration reform, but it is clear that any such reform will come in the 113th Congress, not the 112th.  And the parties to that discussion are keeping the talks confidential, so it's hard to tell just how far the GOP will bend on the issue of what its members keep referring to as "amnesty" for the millions of undocumented Hispanics already here.  We will just have to wait to see what that involves.

We continue to live in interesting times.

Rainbows

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution 11/11/12.  Click on image to enlarge and then return.)

Republicans (at least some of them) have done a little analyzing of the results of the election and are suddenly making noises about some changes in their approach.  Given the overwhelming vote for Obama in the Hispanic community (he tied for the Cuban vote in Florida which traditionally votes Republican) and given the rising number of Hispanic voters, some are even moving towards the idea of an immigration reform bill.

The first hint of this movement came surprisingly from the punditocracy.  Amazingly, Fox News appears to have shifted gears, as noted by Media Matters.  I must say that hearing Sean Hannity call for a new look at immigration reform rather stunned me, especially since he also said his new view is an "evolved" one.  Shocking!

But some elected Republican officials have chimed in as well, as noted by The Hill (via The Impolitic):

...Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said a “comprehensive approach” on the issue was “long overdue.” ...

 The comments from Boehner and other Republicans suggesting movement on immigration reform reflect broad fears within the party that it is cutting itself off from the fast-growing constituency.

Warning signs for Republicans in terms of its future with Hispanic voters could be found not only in the election’s results but in exit polls that found Romney tied Obama even among Cuban Americans in Florida, who have traditionally been a strong GOP constituency.

Further, on yesterday's bobblehead shows, another Republican spoke to the issue and even suggested some details to get around the "amnesty" objection.  From the AP:

Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who promoted similar proposals on separate Sunday news shows said that no path to citizenship would be available until the country's borders were secure.

Only then could those in the U.S. without authorization "come out of the shadows, get biometrically identified, start paying taxes, pay a fine for the law they broke," Graham told CBS' "Face the Nation." ''They can't stay unless they learn our language, and they have to get in the back of line before they become citizens. They can't cut in front of the line regarding people who are doing it right and it can take over a decade to get their green card."

Is this just talk or are Republicans serious?  It's hard to tell.  A couple of Republicans in California have been screaming for some movement on the issue since 2010 when the Republicans were shut out of all constitutional offices.  Things didn't fare any better for them in this last election.  It appears the Democrats have won super-majorities in both houses of the state legislature, which makes raising taxes possible.  Another blow-out election on the national level in 2014 could result in the loss of the House and further losses in the Senate for the GOP.  The fear of that happening might be enough to get things moving.

It's almost enough for me to go out and buy some popcorn.

Almost. 

Ever See Them In The Same Room Together?

David Horsey has reached Olympian status with this cartoon and post. The man does snark exceedingly well. Go read the whole column. No, really. I'll wait.

This is my favorite section:

On this, as on all other issues, Limbaugh has his loyalists who agree with everything he says. He calls them "dittoheads." Scalia also has his dittoheads. They are the two justices who joined him in dissent on the Arizona ruling, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The three are the unwavering conservative block on the court, usually joined by Roberts and occasionally by the perpetual swing voter, Anthony Kennedy. ...

Scalimbaugh, it's what we're stuck with.

But ... But ... They're Illegal

On Tuesday, I snarked a bit about the uncomfortable position Mitt Romney, Sen. Marco Rubio, and the Republican Party found themselves in after President Obama's executive order ceasing deportation of young people brought into this country illegally when they were children. Republicans had been trying to reach out to Latinos when the news hit and they were faced with repudiating the order (and losing whatever chance they had for gaining Latino voters), or with nodding sagely (and losing their base).

Republicans settled for screaming about the unseemly, inappropriate, and illegal use of the executive order for what should have been left to Congress to hammer out. It's an argument that might ordinarily have some merit, but at this point in the election year the damage was already done. Obama picked up some support from independents. In fact, most people actually support the Dream Act because punishing kids for the sins of their fathers just doesn't seem fair. Furthermore, since many of those kids have been educated here, it only seems practical to take advantage of that education by allowing them to use skills they picked up here where it counts.

David Horsey has updated and amplified his views on the issue in his 6/20/12 cartoon and column.

Republicans seem befuddled by President Obama’s decision to halt deportation of young people brought into the United States illegally by their undocumented parents. Mitt Romney is gobsmacked, Speaker of the House John A. Boehner is exasperated and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is totally bummed out. ...

According to new polls, the new policy is quite popular with most voters — independent voters in particular. The one segment of the electorate that hates it is the Republican base. This leaves Romney and company in a quandary. If they flat out condemn the president’s action they will please the majority of their party, but they will further alienate Latino voters who are already turned off by the hard line, anti-immigration rhetoric Romney employed to get himself to the right of his conservative opponents in the GOP primaries. An attack on the policy could also hurt Romney’s appeal to the independents whose votes he absolutely needs if he hopes to be president.

OK, nice summary, but from here, Horsey introduces a couple of new elements, both of which are very pertinent to the discussion by all parties.

This latest kerfuffle over immigration policy comes at a time when the dynamics of immigration are shifting so quickly that old arguments are quickly becoming obsolete. Tirades in favor of a border wall become less relevant in light of statistics that indicate 1.4 million Mexicans headed back to Mexico between 2005 and 2010, an out-migration that may be accelerating. While many of these people were deported through stepped-up efforts of the federal government, many are voluntarily leaving because of tougher state laws and the slump in employment. The self-deportation that Romney says he favors may actually be working.

There is also the interesting news that immigrants from Asia who come with a high level of education and highly marketable skills now outnumber Latino immigrants. Unlike the Mexicans who were taking jobs that Americans did not want to do, the new Asian immigrants are snapping up high-paying positions for which too many American kids lack training.

It is way past time for the immigration debate to move beyond hysterics about a Mexican invasion and on to the new challenges. One of those challenges, which is also a huge opportunity, is to utilize the talents of hundreds of thousands of smart young people who have grown up in the U.S. but lack legal status. Helping them realize their dreams in the only country they call home would be an act of simple common sense. [Emphasis added]

Yes, and yes.

The hysteria about immigration has been rooted in the racism which sees Mexicans as simply unworthy. Now that they are leaving (with the resulting increase in food prices because no "Americans" can handle the work), such hysteria is seen for what it is.

And the rapid increase in Asian immigrants, many of whom come here on visas sponsored by companies who want their talents at a wage less than they'd have to pay American, seems not to bother Republicans at all. I'm still waiting to hear any kind of response from anyone with the GOP which doesn't start with, "They're here legally. That's different."

I'm sure unemployed American workers are satisfied with that answer.

Eleven Dimensional Chess

(Editorial cartoon by Mike Luckovich and published 6/19/2012 by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Click on image to enlarge and then please return.)

I almost feel sorry for the GOP. Here they've been working hard to pivot from the harsh hard-right anti-immigration stand they've held for decades in order capture the ever growing Hispanic vote in this country, and they get out-maneuvered by a well-timed executive order which goes half-way to the Dream Act.

One Republican who's less than pleased with President Obama's announcement is Florida Senator Marco Rubio who had hoped to pose an alternative to the Dream Act that Republicans would support. Unfortunately, he never got around to finishing it.

In the latest aftershock from President Obama’s move to bar the deportation of some young illegal immigrants, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio has apparently abandoned his plan to offer a conservative alternative to the Dream Act. ...

Rubio said it would be hard to argue with fellow lawmakers when they say to him: “Why are we going to need to do anything on this now? It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election.” The first-term senator made the comment in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Neil King.

And Mitt Romney? Well, he was kind of hoping that Rubio would provide him with a plan he could take to Latino voters to show all of the harsh rhetoric of the primary season could just be forgotten.

Romney is attempting to narrow Obama’s advantage among Latino voters, after spending the primary season running to the right of his main GOP rivals on the immigration issue. Polls have shown the president with a lead over Romney among Latinos even larger than Obama's lopsided advantage over John McCain in the 2008 election.

In an effort to reach out to Latinos, Romney has repeatedly sought cover from Rubio, a charismatic young conservative.

In recent months, Romney had hinted that he would back a Rubio proposal to help young, undocumented immigrants—assuming the senator could come up with one that gained wide Republican support—while declining to discuss the issue in detail. Last Friday, after Rubio responded coolly to Obama by warning that the president was making it harder, rather than easier, to resolve the problem, Romney echoed Rubio’s words in commenting publicly on the president’s move for the first time.

Republicans are all screaming that the president engaged in a blatantly cynical campaign ploy. Well, yes. Yes, he did. And it worked. Additionally, it was the right thing to do, but I don't assume that was high on the list of reasons for changing the deportation policy.

So Mitt Romney might want to keep a close eye on the people who do the yard work at his various mansions. He might get a lawn cut he won't be happy with.

Back Flow

David Horsey has some interesting comments on the recent Pew report on immigration statistics. Both the report and Mr. Horsey's comments are quite timely because the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on the immigration issue with respect to Arizona's law on illegal immigrants this week.

According to a report released by the Pew Hispanic Center, the massive wave of Mexicans entering this country illegally is subsiding and a rising counter current of Mexicans returning to their homeland has brought net migration to a statistical equilibrium.

This trend began about five years ago, according to the report, and the number of undocumented Mexican nationals in the U.S. has fallen from 7 million to 6.1 million. At the same time, the number returning – or, as Mitt Romney would put it, “self-deporting” – has jumped significantly.

There are several probable reasons for the reversal of the trend. Horsey mentions one that is often ignored. As contraception became more readily available and its use more acceptable, the number of children born in Mexican families has declined, thus making for a smaller labor pool needing to make the trek. But he also mentions a couple of more that certainly make sense.

Another big element in the immigration shift is that Mexico’s economy is puttering along rather well. There are more jobs south of the border, while the prolonged U.S. economic slump has made employment scarcer to the north. The result is that, for some Mexicans, there is more economic opportunity to be found at home than in places such as Arizona, where they are less and less welcome.

Adding to the incentive for Mexicans to stay put are the heightened dangers along the border, beefed-up border enforcement and a sharp increase in deportations under the Obama administration. (A record high 400,000 people were deported last year alone.)

Does the report make the Supreme Court case moot? Not hardly. The primary issue is whether a state has the power to enact laws regarding immigration or whether that is purely a federal matter. Arizona and its supporters in this will no doubt argue that the federal government has not moved on the issue and therefor have yielded that power. And, to be honest, the states have a legitimate gripe. Congress has avoided the issue for at least a decade. President Obama is now promising to take it up "first thing" after the election, but he made a similar promise four years ago. Republicans don't want any reform which might in any way smack of "amnesty" for the millions of undocumented workers already here or for their children.

And there's another factor complicating the whole matter. Businesses, especially in the agricultural sector, count on immigrant employees (documented or not) to get the work done. The employees work cheap, work under lousy conditions, and don't complain for fear of a visit from ICE. Alabama, which also has passed a very restrictive measure, had crops rotting on the trees and in the fields for lack of workers to harvest. California will face the same problem if the feds don't come up with a reasonable law (and a new "Bracero Program" is not a reasonable law, in my opinion) shortly.

And that means that those businesses will have to raise wages and improve working conditions to attract workers with the requisite papers. Prices for food stuffs, and for garments, and for a host of other products still being made in this country will rise accordingly.

I think this is going to be one of the thorniest problems facing the 113th Congress. Maybe this time our congress critters will actually address it.

Family Values

Earlier in the year, the Obama administration announced that some new rules on immigration would be formulated. On Monday, one new rule was posted for public comment, and the right wing anti-immigrant people went wild. Media Matters details just how crazy things got.

Right-wing media have attacked a proposed Obama administration rule change that would reduce the amount of time required for undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of American citizens to apply for residency as "stealth amnesty" by a "lawless regime." But the proposed rule change would allow eligible immigrants to obtain a lawful return visa without a long separation from their families...

The post details the hateful spewings of the usual suspects: Judicial Watch, the Drudge Report, Fox Nation. Go visit the post at Media Matters to view the nonsense crap being "reported" and links to those sources. I decline to post too much of either. I'd rather post a link to the Federal Register which sets forth the actual rule change and rationale behind it.

DHS proposes to change its current process for the filing and adjudication of certain waivers of inadmissibility for qualifying immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, who are physically present in the United States, but must proceed abroad to obtain their immigrant visas. DHS proposes to allow qualifying immediate relatives to apply for a provisional waiver of their inadmissibility for unlawful presence while they are still in the United States and before they leave to attend their immigrant visa interview abroad.

Approving an application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver prior to the immediate relative's immigrant visa interview will allow the DOS consular officer to issue the immigrant visa without delay if there are no other grounds of inadmissibility and if the immediate relative otherwise is eligible to be issued an immigrant visa. The immediate relative would not have to wait abroad during the period when USCIS adjudicates his or her waiver request, but rather could remain in the United States with his or her U.S. citizen spouse or parent during that period. As a result, U.S. citizens' separation from their immediate relatives would be significantly reduced. In addition, given the greater certainty that will result from this process, U.S. citizens and their family members would also be able to better plan for the immediate relative's departure and eventual return to the United States. [Emphasis added]

In other words, parents and/or spouses who are not here legally are being given a chance to expedite a determination on their status, in some cases, without leaving the country. They still have to go through the process, but will not have to be separated from their families for extended periods of time. This hardly looks like amnesty. What it does do is open a channel for those who have not entered the process because of the length of time and the expense involved an opportunity to make things right.

If the only "crime" involved is over-staying a visa, what's the harm? If the undocumented immigrant is the primary bread-winner for the family, or the only parent of an American born child, a lengthy separation doesn't do anything but punish harshly those left behind. The rule change would keep families intact.

The "family values" folks don't quite see it that way. Apparently only all-American families are valuable in their eyes. That certainly comes as no surprise, especially since it involves people with darker skins or differently shaped eyes.

The rule change has been posted by DHS for the mandatory period for public comment. You might want to wander over to the Federal Register for more information on how to enter your comment in the discussion. You can bet the usual suspects have been sending their minions over.

Another Reason To Hate B of A

Marcos Breton has a gut-wrenching commentary featured at McClatchy DC. It's about an undocumented worker who came to the US as a teenager, got a job as a dishwasher in a restaurant. He worked hard and gradually worked his way up in that kitchen. He paid taxes, opened a bank account, saved his money, married and had children born in this country. He bought a house. And then things went horribly wrong.

Martinez had been a Bank of America customer since 1996. One day 11 months ago, he got a call to go to his branch in Marysville, where he now lives after residing for years in Sacramento, to discuss his accounts.

It was so routine, Martinez took his 6-year-old daughter with him.

When he arrived, the police were called. He was detained in an office at the bank branch, he said. ...

During a routine background check, his undocumented status was discovered and he soon found himself in a federal immigration jail in New Mexico.

He spent two weeks in jail, and his deportation case, so huge is the backlog, is set for June 2013.

Mr. Martinez, who committed no crime after arriving in this country, got ratted out by his own bank. Because he was unable to contact his employer about the arrest, he was fired for absenteeism. His house went into foreclosure, which was stopped only when a couple of lawyers stepped up for him and filed suit to stop those proceedings, but because of the long wait before his case gets heard, it is unlikely that Martinez will be able to work to support his family.

But wait, it gets even worse:

Oh, and according to Martinez's lawyers, Bank of America is still holding his money.

Go read the whole column. Then, after the nausea passes, if you still have a B of A account, seriously consider whether you want to enrich those leeches further.

Some Good News

It's the New Year, one which is an election year, and I've already found some good news. There may be plenty of crazy racists in California, but not as many as the Republicans were counting on.

Opponents of California's Dream Act have failed in a signature-gathering drive aimed at overturning the new law that will permit some undocumented immigrants to receive publicly funded college aid. ...

The effort garnered 447,514 signatures, not the required 504,760 valid voter signatures required to place the matter before voters ...

The Dream Act allows undocumented students who came to the country before age 16 and attended California high schools to apply for public financial aid, including Cal Grants. Those students already are eligible for in-state tuition, and Gov. Jerry Brown also signed a companion measure this year affording them access to private financial aid.

"Going to college is a dream that promises intellectual excitement and creating thinking," Brown said in a prepared statement upon signing the contested bill, Assembly Bill 131, in October. "The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us." [Emphasis added]

In a state as populous and diverse as California, the right wing couldn't find half a million loonies willing to sign on to the mean-spirited attempt to repeal a decent and compassionate law. Republican legislators, of course, are spinning it a little differently. They promise that the issue won't go away because the state's budget won't allow for such spending. Giving kids a chance for an education is frivolous in their eyes.

Of course, this victory is only half-a-loaf, which while better than no bread at all still doesn't fully solve the problem. Once these students graduate, unless there has been some meaningful immigration reform giving them a shot at citizenship or at least legal residence, they won't be able to secure the jobs which will enrich the state and its citizens.

Such reform has to come at the national level, and it won't come from the 112th Congress during an election year. The various candidates for the Republican nomination have gone out of their way to bash immigrants by trying to outdo each other in cementing our borders against the unwashed hordes trying to sneak in and steal our vital essence. Congressional Republicans have already made it clear that anything that smacks of "amnesty" will not be tolerated, even when that "amnesty" is being extended to kids who were brought here before they were sixteen and had no say in the matter. And congressional Republicans control the House and are gunning to take the Senate in 2012.

That means we are going to have to elect Democrats across the country to Congress so that at least we have a shot at humane reform. We might have to hold our noses at voting for Obama, but there is every reason in the world to vote for decent people down the ticket. That way we might finally get the change we voted for in 2008.

WTF?

I've been hit with some kind of fell winter bug. My head hurts, my chest hurts, I have a dry cough so my ribs hurt, plus I'm running a low grade fever. I am, therefore, justifiably cranky, which makes it a bad time for me to read a Los Angeles Times editorial. I am now absolutely enraged, not by the editorial stance (the center-left editorial board got it so right than I am staggered and would be pleased with them if I felt better), but by the information contained in that editorial.

When Congress enacted the Prison Rape Elimination Act, it did so in the hope of curbing sexual assaults in facilities across the country. But today, with new rules to protect prisoners being finalized, the Department of Homeland Security is demanding that immigrants held in detention centers be exempted. ...

...the Department of Homeland Security is now squabbling over whether it or the Department of Justice has the authority to write rules that protect immigrants.

Isn't it obvious that protecting detainees is more important than who is the boss of whom? Detained immigrants are just as vulnerable to assault as any other prisoners, yet they're especially reluctant to report it. Unlike criminal defendants, detainees have no right to a court-appointed lawyer; that means they're often left with no advocate they can turn to. They are held in remote facilities, often far from legal clinics and family. And language creates an additional barrier to reporting abuse. [Emphasis added]

Homeland Security and Justice are in a freaking turf war over this issue? And their boss, the President of the United States is letting this happen? Is there no one in charge over there? Are there no adults present at that end of town?

Outfuckingrageous.

Here's the editorial's conclusion:

Rape is a crime. To apply the new regulations to some and not others would create a two-tier system of justice. That's not acceptable. Immigrants who are detained while they fight deportation (and who, by the way, have not generally been charged with, much less convicted of, a crime) deserve the same protections provided to criminals sentenced to maximum-security prisons.

Exactly.

Now, somebody needs to take Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder to the woodshed and read them the editorial, after which they should apply a mackerel to both of their heads and shoulders with great force.

Morons.