Is Immigration Reform one of the most complicated transpartisan issues we face today?

Question

Two of my 360 conservative friends have recently flipped on the issue. One, a GWB, faithful supporter, went from favoring to disfavoring after a look at the flaws in the bill.

The other, a Christian conservative, went the other way after considering the plight of the Mexican economy. Here's my partisan response to him.

Although the bill isn't cut and dry as good or bad as the sparring candidates are giving as an impression , keep in mind that what makes this so complicated is the long-term implications. Ever since the days of Prop. 187, Republicans have been desperate to rebut unjust Democratic charges that they are anti-immigrant (read: anti-Latino) bigots. Fair enough.

The problem is that signing on to this incredibly flawed immigration bill isn't the way to solve that problem -- even though a short-term resolution of the illegal immigration problem might cast a warm glow over a politician's heart.

A University of Maryland study reveals that passage of the current immigration bill would, in fact, precipitate a political realignment hugely favorable to the Democrats (no wonder Teddy Kennedy was supposedly willing to accept some less-than-favored provisions in the bill).

And none of this has to do with race or ethnicity. The fact is that the immigration bill as it's currently constituted would offer citizenship to a vast number of uneducated and very poor migrants. Given that the Democrats had (at least until 2006) been losing electoral market share, integrating these people into the political system has no doubt seemed, by far, like the best way to revive the welfare state's flagging fortunes.

Indeed, Republicans have long hoped that Latinos would become the 21st century equivalent of the Reagan Democrats. But in order to care about limited government and low taxes, one must have some money and property that needs protecting from the government. Importing what's essentially a reserve army of the desperately poor and unemployed from Mexico isn't only a recipe for finding new big-government clients, it also inhibits those who are already here (and already citizens) from climbing the economic ladder.

What are your pros and cons from your perspective?

Answer 1

This is one of the very best questions I've read here! Too bad my answer won't do it justice - constraints of time, among other things.

I love the word "transpartisan" - I thought you were going to use it in another way. Remember, in 2000 both Bush and Gore were free-traders, and both Buchanan and Nader were not. Immigration is somewhat similar.

Yes, Barney Frank was even quoted as saying this bill was good for Democrats. i'm sickened by the dollop of lies and sentiment accompanying this bill. All the "enforcement" provisions come in several years time - and will be amended or ignored, like last time, and the time before.

I don't know of any nation that has survived an influx of such a large number of people in such a short time.

I fear for America's future. I'm glad I'm not a younger man.

It will be entertaining to see the Democrats explain to these new voters, largely Catholic and socially conservative, how abortion on demand and same-sex marriage are good ideas, and public displays of religion are not. Heck, maybe we need people who seem to have national pride - in Aztlan, not America, unfortunately - to keep the Islamofascists at bay. The liberal, "multicultural" secularists don't seem to have that passion for America that we need.

As I said, I am pessimistic about the survival of the America I know and love. My COUNTRY and CIVILIZATION are being taken away from me, and no one asked what I think.

What else can I say?

Answer 2

I'll agree the bill is flawed--though at least somebody's finally trying to do something.

The biggest problem isn't finding a workable immigration policy though--and it really isn't all that complicated. The problem is that all the "solutions" are either unrealistic or they punch too many ideological buttons.

Too illustrate what I mean: First, a (short!) bit of history--immigrants in the US come in waves (this being the current one). Despite the outrageous claims of "losing America's identity," "draining the public coffers," "increasing crime," "changing the political equation" etc., what always happens in practice is that the new group assimilates into the mainstream society and in a generation or two are virtually indistinguishable from the rest of the American population.

Also: you mentioned an advantage to the Democrats. You are probably right. But if that's the case, it will be because the GOP blew thier chance. Why? First, immigrants usually are concerned with local issues affecting themselves, not naional politics--and these are no different. And they are disproportionately in "Red States."

Despite the rhetoric, they are usually LESS concerned with government houndouts, but more concerned with local housing, jobs (the kind Americans really don't want), opportunity to start small businessses, etc.

The point (remember, I'm drawing from history and social science studies here) is that the GOP will get first crack at recruiting these immigrants. Granted, I agree, the Democrats willl be the winners--but also again, that will be the GOP's own fault.

Just to wind this up with something else to think about:
Let's strip away all the ideology, etc. Here's one policy model that would WORK (it might not be the best, and it wouldn't satisfy everyone, but that's not the point--its realistic):
>A guest worker program--with mandatory periodic reviews but no mandated "return" if a employer wants to retain the worker.
>No access to social services except basic health care (for public health reasons).
> No "automatic" path to citizenship unless the individual shows he/she merits being upgraded from the "temporary" status
>For the current "illegals:" Eligability for this guest worker program (above) if certain conditions are met: a)they have not broken any other laws; b) they are employed; c) they register within a "grace period" --say, 1 year.
Skip the " musical chairs" about going back to their homeland first--that's dumb. No built-in "path to citizenship" other than what I already said. And if you want to fine them, okay--but make it reasonable--say $500, not $5000--a fine most can't pay isn't good policy--its an invitation to further problems.
>Guest workers may not bring family members UNLESS they show they can provide for their support, not the public sector. And any children born here does not automatically have US citizenship--unless the other parent is already a citizen (but they, not the guest worker, automatically get custody).

Answer 3

I think the biggest problem facing women/children today is prositution and slavery. Some men are put into these positions, but by far, women and children are the ones to be forced into these situations. I can't really say much about mens rights and issues, expect that they still have have stigmas based solely on the fact that they are male. For example, the other day I ran into a debate about that female teacher that had sex with her 15 year old student. The men were all claiming that there should have been no problem and that the young boy was probably really happy with the situation. They claimed that since she was attractive that he probably wanted to have sex with her. I thought this was a terrible argument. Yes, young boys probably do want to have sex, but he was still a young child...I mean, young children have not developed fully to comprehend the responsibilities and consquences of sex...and, she was an authority figure that abused said authority. I thought she should have gone to jail, but she was only put under house arrest. That's disturbing to me. Surprisingly, mostly the women in the debate were for the teacher going to jail, while the men thought the young boy was a "*****" for telling his parents. I want our society still to be based on roles. But, I want people to be able to choose what their role in society is. If that means staying home with the kids, while the husband goes to work, fine. Not everyone wants to be the traditional mother or the traditional father...and there is nothing wrong with that. I also want single mothers to get more support, as they are often the ones to see poverty. I know people think that all they do is collect welfare, but that couldn't be further from the truth. They are the ones suffering and they need our help. Furthermore, I want men to be able to report rape and/or abuse without feeling like they are being weak. Men DO have emotions and they CAN feel hurt and afraid and alone, despite what some people seem to think. We need to be more understanding of these situations.

Answer 4

I see immigration reform, as it is currently drafted, as being involuntary obfuscation (or maybe voluntary). The framers of this bill have made a simple issue...border security...an incredibly complex naturalization issue. It seems that Congress is not willing to deal with the most pressing issue: border security. We have the means to cut off all illegal immigration. It is our most important and most pressing need. We all should be focusing on border security. We already have immigration laws. The 600 plus pages of the new bill make it unmanageable. We have many welfare recipients in the US, we should line them up along our borders and use them as spotters for the border patrol. They could do the job sitting down. They are already getting paid. The current case workers can then be used as supervisors, to make sure the welfare people are in their observation chairs. We should round up all illegal aliens and deport them. They broke the law.

Answer 5

This is a wordy bill that is bad for America. Basically, it is amnesty and this will be the second time around. Reagan did this and it did not work, only made it worse.

It's time to get tough with immigration. We don't need anymore laws, just enforce the ones we have.

I will vote against everyone that votes for this travesty of law.