Specter's Spectre

For the first time in two decades, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday begins debate on the way overdue issue of comprehensive immigration reform. The Senate Judiciary Committee now has until March 27 to come up with a definitive proposal.

Unfortunately, the debate is mired in a growing Republican civil war that could sink the whole process. On the one side are conservatives like John McCain in the Senate and Jeff Flake in the House who have joined with Democrats to support both a guest worker program and legalization for the 11 million "illegals" estimated to be living in the U.S. They've come together around the so-called McCain-Kennedy proposal which is also supported by immigrant advocate groups and organized labor.

On the other side are the so-called "restrictionists" who want to continue with our current head-in-the-sand policy and merely build bigger and higher walls and fences. While the latter sentiment already manifested itself ina bill passed last December in the House, there had been some optimism that the Senate would do a more reasonable job.

But just as the crucial debate begins, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, has done his best to make things more complicated and more confused. Call it unrestrained ego or sinister subterfuge, but Specter has cooked up his own last-minute proposal which will now become the "main" bill that his committee will mark up. While Specter sides with the liberalizers in proposing that the undocumented already here be given work permits, his measure winds up on the restrictionist side in not allowing those same workers to be put on a path to permanent residence or citizenship.

No surprise that Specter's proposal has left both sides of the debate unsatisfied. The good news is that the Senate is finally edging toward reality on this issue by merely having the debate. The bad news will be if it can't get past the sort of half-measures proposed by Specter. The elephant in the room are the 11 million undocumented already living here. Time to stop living in denial.

Comments (16)

1. Suggestion:

   Should Congress pass a bill that enables the awarding of citizenship to the illegal immigrants already in the country, the bill should include a fine to the employers who broke the law by hearing illegal workers and depressing the wages of present citizens.

   The illegal immigration issue is a mixed bag of humanitarian treatment of indigent world workers, the depressing of real wages for present Americans, and the violation of the law by those employers who hired and took advantage of these illegal immigrants.

   Illegal immigration is somewhat like sending jobs overseas to get lower wages, except in the case of illegal immigrant workers, the cheap labor is 'imported' rather than exporting the job.

   What a screwing the average American is doing to himself or herself; all for cheap(all senses of the adjective) goods.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 03/07/2006 @ 10:34am

2. "No surprise that Specter's proposal has left both sides of the debate unsatisfied. "

   hmmm...sounds like a compromise...sinister indeed...not good for a democracy...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/07/2006 @ 10:58am

3. As AH wrote( http://leftbehinds.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-havent-seen-this-anywhere.html ), the Mexican guest workers program merely legalizes a permanent, second-class, noncitizen labor force with short enough visas to make unionization very difficult. And like any green card system, I think you only get to stay as long as you're employed, which means the employer still holds the hammer. It creates a legal means for meatpacking plants and agribusiness to keep exploiting cheap labor, while not helping immigrant workers nearly as much as truly liberalized borders.

   Posted by leftbehinds at 03/07/2006 @ 11:31am

4. " while not helping immigrant workers nearly as much as truly liberalized borders. "

   I am more interested in helping Americans regulate the border than helping make it easier for illegals to come here and be exploited.

   The money they make in packing plants is great for the family back home but the strain on local services does not balance out the equation. I want employers to pay huge fines for hiring illegals and make them absorb the cost of repatriation and all cost associated with the services used here. Nothing less will slow the invasion.

   Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2006 @ 11:57am

5. Maasch,

   In this case we are of the same mind, except that employers are fly-by-night shell companies in order to avoid the threat of civil and even criminal prosecution for their activities. In other words, Walmart doesn't directly hire illegals they contract a cleaning company to clean their store that hires illegals. Cargill doesn't hire illegal's to pick strawberries they contract a harvesting company, etc.

   So I'd propose financial fines to a company not doing a reasonable background search of the employees of their contractor companies.

   Posted by freedomplease at 03/07/2006 @ 12:05pm

6. Sounds good to me, free..a very "conservative" approach..:)

   Posted by john maasch at 03/07/2006 @ 12:08pm

7. I'm of two minds about the exploitation of indigent laborers. Part of me thinks liberalized borders would be the best for all laborers everywhere (since it would allow for labor organizing, etc.). However, when Dubya and I are on the same side of an issue I know I need to reexamine my position. Part of me thinks it would just normalize a situation in which corporations exploit indigent workers.

   Having worked at a management consulting company for a couple years, I can definitely attest that every corporate decision boils down to a very simple cost/benefit analysis. Raising the costs of exploiting indigent labor would have immediate effects.

   Of course, good luck getting that legislation past the corporate-controlled Congress. The sad truth is that whatever legislation passes will pass for all the wrong reasons and will almost definitely benefit big business, not workers on either side of the (imaginary) border.

   Posted by leftbehinds at 03/07/2006 @ 1:08pm

8. Leftbehind,

   Well stated.

   Bush's proposal for illegal immigration reform is more about politics and corporate welfare than about the porous, southern U.S. border or the well-being of the illegal immigrant.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 03/07/2006 @ 2:10pm

9. With the Sensenbrenner bill bound to be a ball and chain in conference committee should a Senate bill pass, perhaps those of us who want a just reform of immigration should try to stop any comprehensive reform bill from getting to the president's desk this session, wait until after the fall elections with hopes that the fall elections will make it possible not to have to settle for the lesser of two evils.

   Posted by rhinkle at 03/07/2006 @ 8:45pm

10. For a fraction of what we spend on machinations of empire, we could initiate--with Mexico and Canada--a comprehensive program to assist development in Mexico which would reduce the pressures causing illegal immigration; and at the same time we could develop a rational drug policy, decriminalizing pot. But it would take leadership with considerable imagination. In the meantime, we continue to spend money fruitlessly on tough-sounding programs to keep out marijuana and desperate people. So long as marijuana and undocumented workers are welcomed by some people on this side of the border, the effort to keep them out will be futile. No one in our present government seems able to understand the futility of swagger and of the us/them dichotomy, a phony construct.

    Posted by had enough at 03/07/2006 @ 10:51pm

11. Dear reader:

    MC's third para is in error. Those "restrictionists" in the House want to enforce our immigration laws, they don't want to continue the current standoff.

    As for the "liberalizers", perhaps one of these days a real reporter will look into why they're so "liberal". Could it be because some of them are in effect paid to be "liberal" by those companies that profit off illegal immigration?

    For example, a bank makes a lot of money off sending remittances to Mexico. They then turn around and donate to politicians who "look the other way" on immigration enforcement.

    Isn't that what's normally refered to as corruption? Shouldn't a real reporter look into that instead of supporting those who would undermine the foundations of this country?

    As for remittances "helping" those back home, the opposite is true. They deprive the sending countries of the people they need to grow, the create an extremely unhealthy dependency, and - once again - they encourage corruption.

    Mexico's second greatest source of income is from remittances, and they naturally want that to continue and grow. We've given them a huge incentive to send us people, and they do everything they can to make sure that they can send their money home. They're even starting a new website to help their citizens find the lowest cost way to send money. It will feature Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Western Union. Those companies are profting off illegal immigration, and most companies don't want to let go of profit opportunities.

    Posted by LonewackoCom at 03/08/2006 @ 12:19am

12. The central problem for Democrats in this debate is that you can't be pro-immigraation without being anti-living-wage. The problem for Republicans is that the consequence of enforcing the laws is that you may not be able to find a gardener, maid or nanny at the price that you would like to pay.

    Yesterday on NPR, I listened to a Florida resident who was identified as a socially conservative Republican. This woman was saying that we need more immigration because she and her husband were not able to find enough workers in the local labor market who were willing to work 10 to 14 hours per day in the hot Florida sun FOR MINIMUM WAGE to harvest her citrus orchard.

    The factor that all Democrats should take to heart is that to be pro-immigration, to favor amnesty for illegal immigrants, is to favor the capitalist exploitation of labor. This has been the strategy of the class warfare that has been waged against the poor and the middle class in this country for the past couple of decades.

    We, who collect income at regular intervals in the form of a paycheck, have been excluded from a seat at the WTO so that capitalists will have a free hand to move factories and investments to whatever market was paying the lowest wage, while our own government has failed to enforce the immigration laws resulting in lower wages for the jobs that remain in this country. The beneficiaries of this process have been the owners of businesses that were able to move their production facilities overseas while they paid the non-english-speaking nanny and gardener in cash under the table. The winners are people who should be voting Republican, the losers are people who should be voting Democrat.

    Democrats should take a stance against immigration, against amnesty for illegal immigrants, and for effective enforcement of immigration laws for the same reasons that Bush's "have more" Republicans should favor the current situation (laws that aren't effectively enforced) - it's about supply and demand. Easy immigration expands the labor supply and lowers wages.

    Posted by rexrobards at 03/08/2006 @ 12:45pm

13. Rexrobards, nicely put.

    Unfortunately, the legacy of myopic identity politics is that people work against their class interests because of perceived racism. With this issue, class is the relevant concern, not race (despite the idiotic ranting of the demagogues who are not in fact the decision-makers).

    When progressives argue for liberalized labor markets because they're "pro-latino" you know that the vast right wing conspiracy is having a good chuckle.

    Posted by leftbehinds at 03/08/2006 @ 2:13pm

14. (incidentally, because of the way class operates in the U.S., if you prioritize class struggles, you end up benefitting people of color -- but if you prioritize identity politics, too often you end up playing into the hands of the right wing)

    Posted by leftbehinds at 03/08/2006 @ 2:15pm

15. Noone on either side of the border has a vested interest in stopping illegal immigration. Corporate America would love nothing better than to legalize or semi-leglalize illegals.Ha ve we learned nothing from the Europeans who did exactly that and now they own them; all 22 million of them and once you legalize 11 million, ten years from now you will have legalize another 11 million. The burdens on our education, health and other social systems which are gobbling up European resources will gobble up U.S. resources. Hell, we can,t even look after our less fortunate U.S Citizens. As long as the business cummunity in the U.S will hire them they will keep coming and who would blame them. They will keep coming until the economies of both countries converge, so why not simply open the border and save ourselves the obscene amounts of money we spend to control and administrate this on going problem. " frontierman"

    Posted by johannes at 03/08/2006 @ 3:19pm

16. I´ve read everything you´ve sent concerning illegal inmigration, and from my point of view, you are seeing the results but missing the causes. For one the present administration´s management of the economy,and its close ties with the industrial complex - let´s leave the other half out of it for the moment - is one of the main factors, there´s no trickling whatsoever, the upper 10% is water proof. The second cause lies in your disastrous foreign policy,you might be able to fight two simultaneous wars,but the point is for how long will the Chinese, the Saudis,Japan, Taiwan, Korea etc. be willing to finance it?, or the New Orleans levees ?. Are you willing to turn your country into a huge Enron ? During the 17 th C. the English became the second colonial empire in modern world history, after succesfully destroying the Spanish Empire - with the help of the latter -In the 1850´s France invaded Algeria, because they wanted to become colonial as the Brits; in the 1940´s the Italians decided to revive the Empire in Africa.All of them are now living a pseudo liberal lie,while devising ways to keep them out of Europe. In the 19th the USA apropiated itself of about half the Mexican territory,invaded every country in Central America,colonized Cuba until 1932, and the Fillipines, annexed Puerto Rico,and even availed itself of a portion of China. Backed any demented dictator which could be of any use to you in South America,with the excuse of "fostering democracy ". That is why it doesn´t sound new. And now we´ve reached the present situation, in which you find yourselve´s a la par of "Old Europe", with the difference that the Mediterranean is wider than the Río Grande. So why not put an end to all this ?, find out who your real possible allies might be in a world speedly deteriorating both climatologically as economically. Reach the unavoidable conclusion that all this "Brownies " as Mr Bush Sr. calls his grand children wouldn´t move a finger to live in your ghetto´s if they could make in their own countries the same third rate wages that they make in yours. Wouldn´t it be easier and cheaper to bolster their economies, and keep them home, than to bleed them and have them us unwanted guests ? There´s no wall to keep people apart, sooner or later they´ll spill over or burrough under, it´s been tried before uncecsesfully and it will fail again

    Posted by Eduardo at 03/10/2006 @ 4:12pm