Economy May Force Obama to Abandon Plan to Overhaul Immigration

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: Bloomberg

April 24 (Bloomberg) -- The long campaign to overhaul U.S. immigration laws may be derailed for yet another year -- this time by the deteriorating economy.

Lawmakers, lobbyists and advocates on both sides of the issue said the highest unemployment rate in more than 25 years would make it difficult for President Barack Obama to push legislation that would legalize millions of immigrants in the country illegally and create a new guest-worker program.

“The debate has changed,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who opposed immigration legislation when it was last considered in 2007. “I don’t think it’s going to be a pleasant discussion because the American people won’t be happy about it.”



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=avxmcRABpSlw&refer=us

---

Looks like republicans need some unresolved issues for the 2010 election, the economy as an excuse to not address immigration,, good deal.

[WriteDown]

1. So he's basically admitting that illegal aliens...

displace American workers?

[AlphaCentauri]

2. Maybe giving republicans a chance to rebuild their party with anti immigration agenda

They could win some seats if hispanics get fed up with rhetorics and "nationalist" groups get their message to the unemployed blaming immigrants for w's economic adventures

[Baby Snooks]

3. Oh he would never admit that...

Neither would anyone else. Why, that would mean that Ronald Reagan AND Barbara Jordan were both right. The number of chronically unemployed Americans probably correlates to the number of chronically employed illegal immmigrants in this country. The vast majority of them of course illegal immigrants from Mexico. But of course it is politically incorrect to discuss that. We must be compassionate and welcoming and just keep on welcoming millions of illegal immigrants with open arms.

What this country is all about. Well, sort of. This country is really about maintaining a "worker class" that is exempt from labor law and taxation. And there are just as many Democrats who support that "right" to "cheap labor" as there are Republicans.

In many "professional" areas there are no jobs for those who don't speak Spanish. That is adding to the problem of unemployment in this country. We don't have to speak French or German or Italian or Russian or Vietnamese or Mandarin Chinese. But we do have to speak Spanish. Why?

Sorry but the solution to Mexico's problems was not allowing it to export its problems to this country and the solution to our problems was not adding to them by welcoming Mexico's problems with open arms.

[ardvark]

4. illegal immigration demolished african americans

plain and simple

and if an african american got an education, then they were in a league to be smashed by h-1b from india

the combination of money spent on social services and employment opportunites diverted away from african americans sealed them in poverty

in fairness to mexico, nafta blew away mexico's poor farmers, just like ross perot said it would,increasing illegal immigration - but gore shut him down in a debate on larry king

[AlphaCentauri]

8. How absurd

in 1992 Koreans who are legal immigrants were blamed for the poverty and alcoholism that many african american suffered. Crack addiction was the CIA's work in the african american communities, then when Farrakhan organized the million march in 1995 it wasn't to ask for jobs, free college education, universal health care, SBA loans for african americans, none of those issues, it was to blame the Jews, The palestinians, the Koreans, the vietnamese ignoring the real problems that affect african americans and latinos.

[ardvark]

10. i dont believe in overreaching to make excuses for african americans

but i do beleive in fairness to valid concerns

there's no question that illegal immigration has harmed them in countless ways

[AlphaCentauri]

17. as we know poverty and education are the mayor problems in both communities

poverty in the african american community and latinos it's not new, it can be traced back to centuries in this country, so if we are going to blame immigrants for the last 200 years we better look out other excuses and stop listening to the racist xenophobes.

[dflprincess]

9. It's the employers who break the law and hire undocumented workers that displace American workers

and then there's the whole H1B visa thing.

[ohio2007]

12. employers took the bail $$ out and went overseas with the jobs

USA employers not hiring jobs that pay over minimum wage anymore. Just a sign of the times.

[pampango]

5. Good economy, bad economy - most repubs oppose immigration reform.

They filibustered it in the Senate in 2007. President Obama must really care about this deeply to give the repubs a potential issue for 2010. Or maybe he has a political strategy of giving the repubs enough rope to hang themselves. They won the "battle" over immigration reform in 2007, but may have made themselves look so narrow-minded that they lost the "war" in 2008.

The three repubs quoted in the article, Sessions, Martinez and King, all can't seem to wait to yell "amnesty bill", since that's how they think they won the "battle" last time. Of the Democrats quoted, Obama, Gibbs, and Axelrod all say the President is going forward with the discussion (though not necessarily legislation) and Schumer will hold hearings and is optimistic that legislation will pass this year.

At least organized labor is unified in support of legalization and in opposition to a guest worker program this time around. Perhaps that is what makes Obama and Schumer more optimistic about the prospects for immigration reform this time. Larger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate help, too.

[WriteDown]

6. Union "Leaders"

are woefully out of touch with their members. They are all about a race to the bottom as long as it lines their pockets and gives them a seat of power.

[pampango]

7. Perhaps union members will be saved from their "out-of-touch" leaders by the "in-touch" repubs,

like Sessions and King (aided of course by Rush and the Fox News boys yelling "amnesty bill" again).

You're the one lining up against President Obama and organized labor and with the repubs and their talking heads who shot down immigration reform last time.

[WriteDown]

11. The Teamsters were also willing allies of Bush...

Should I have supported them too? Truly progressive nations like Germany, France, Japan, etc., control immigration quite well. That is why Germany can offer the kind of social programs that we will never see in the US. For some reason, we want all the good things that European nations have, but we are not willing to take steps to actually make it a reality.

[ohio2007]

13. You must be talking about the Mexican truck drivers the Teamsters didn't want crossing the US

interstates and highways at sub minimum wage and in sub standard "equipment"

You are for a fixed sub minimum wage for ALL americans and a govt subsidy to keep em poor.

[WriteDown]

14. You talking to me?

I was talking more about this.

http://www.cpcs.umb.edu/labor_notes/files/28006.pdf

[ohio2007]

15. Yes, and I'm talking about the teamster DRIVE program and you quote a PAGE 6 JULY 2002 PDF ?

LOL

why do you post a "Judy Lynn" seven year old article? It has NO bearing on the union situation today

The teamsters have a program called DRIVE but, between the lines, they encourage rank and file to vote blue.

I don't know any teamster that didn't vote blue and I don't think your cherry picked article does anything to reflect the true status of the last strongest standing union in america. You would like them to go the way of the blue state of Michigan auto workers but enjoy 'finger pointing' as to why they were undercut.


How do you feel about the UAW in Canada? We know the UAW in the US is on intensive care and the plug is being pulled.

Whats left? High paid Wal Mart union members to keep the economy chugging down the road ?

[WriteDown]

16. You misunderstand...

I disagreed with the Hoffa in 2002 and I agreed with him later on about the Mexican truck issue. The previous poster seemed to be demanding absolute fealty to union "leaders" though regardless of their position on an issue.

[pampango]

18. But we're not talking about the Teamsters and Bush, but Pres. Obama, the AFL-CIO, and Change to Win.

That's essentially all of organized labor in the US and the Democratic President who are in favor of legalization. You have every right to not agree with them and hope for "rescue" from "out-of-touch" unions leaders by Rep. King and Sen. Shelby. (The fact that one union once sided with a repub president perhaps proves that you don't always have to support union positions, but when all unions support a position, it is a good idea to at least give it some consideration.)

The repubs blocked immigration reform in 2007, when the AFL-CIO and Change to Win were in favor of legalization, so maybe those "in-touch" repubs can come through again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14immig.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

"The nation’s two major labor federations have agreed for the first time to join forces to support an overhaul of the immigration system, leaders of both organizations said on Monday."

"The accord endorses legalizing the status of illegal immigrants already in the United States and opposes any large new program for employers to bring in temporary immigrant workers, officials of both federations said."

[WriteDown]

19. President Obama is out of step with truly progressive nations

like Germany and Japan when it comes to immigration control. That is an undeniable fact and one you seem unable to address.

[pampango]

21. Neither Germany nor Japan has ever been open to immigration. Conservatives prize ethnic and

cultural purity in what they see as homogeneous societies. Japan has been a "closed" society for centuries and has only opened economically. Germany - well we all know Germany's history of valuing ethic purity. Both have resisted immigration historically - long before they had what are now progressive governments.

"Though German industry and banks straddle the globe, linking countries and societies economically, many Germans are fiercely fighting the influx of foreign influence - particularly through immigration. These Germans feel passionately about preserving a homogenous society and are stonewalling reforms of immigration and citizenship laws."

" More moderate Germans acknowledge this reality and dismiss conservative objection about diluting national character . German society, they say, is evolving kaleidoscopically; immigrants can neither destroy nor adapt to a homogenous culture, because it does not exist."

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=2304

Japan, if anything, is more fixated on maintaining a "purely Japanese" society. The pressure to open up those societies to diversity and immigration is coming from liberal forces not conservatives.

If you have any information that shows that anti-immigration sentiment and policies in those two countries are a result of progressive labor policy rather than a historical aversion to people who are different from the dominant group, I'd be happy to see it.

[WriteDown]

23. Australia, Great Britain, etc...

the list goes on and on. Mind you, sensible immigration policies are just fine, but open immigration policies are just ludicrous unless immigration is limited due to geographic boundaries. It amazes me that people are against H1-B visas but are fine with illegal immigration. I guess brown people are fine as long as they know their place mowing lawns and washing dishes. :eyes:.

[pampango]

25. Shifting examples: very good. How about Canada which has immigration policies much more liberal

than those of the US? Canada is very progressive yet encourages immigration. It shares an immigrant-based culture of diversity similar to ours.

"Both major Australian political parties favour a relatively high level of immigration. When John Howard became Prime Minister, net migration was rising, and the upward trend in the number of immigrants increased over the decade from when he took office in 1996."

"About 40% of Australians now have at least one parent born overseas, with Africa being one of the fastest growing immigrant sources. Largely these are white immigrants from South Africa and the former Rhodesia."

Immigration into Great Britain is increasing, not decreasing which has led to the ultra-right party - the British National Party to stake out the following policy on immigration:

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/04/preserving-british-identity-the-british-national-partys-immigration-policy

""The current open-door policy and unrestricted, uncontrolled immigration is leading to higher crime rates , demand for more housing (driving prices out of the reach of young people), severe extra strain on the environment , traffic congestion, longer hospital waiting lists, lower educational standards, higher income taxes, lower wages , higher unemployment , loss of British identity, a breakdown in community spirit, more restrictive policing, higher council taxes, a shortage of council homes, higher levels of stress and unhappiness and a more atomised society."

"Each nation has the right to maintain its own identity. The right of India to remain Indian, the right of China to remain Chinese, the right of Pakistan to remain Pakistani and the right of Saudi Arabia to remain Saudi does not mean that any of these nations “hate” anybody else. All it means is that they wish to preserve their identity and national existence. This is all the British National Party seeks for Britain - the right to be British."

"Only the British National Party has the reasonable, sensible, fair and just immigration policy which will guarantee that Britain remains British.

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally ;
- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British ;
- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;
- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases ;
- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain."

" We want Britain to remain - or return to - the way it has traditionally been . We accept that Britain always will have ethnic minorities and have no problem with this as long as they remain minorities and do not change nor seek to change the fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. "

Unfortunately it's generally the conservatives who oppose immigration in other countries, just as the repubs shot down immigration reform here before and will try to do it again.

[WriteDown]

26. Let's start with Canada...

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200904271458dowjonesdjonline000517&title=canada-minworkers-from-mexico-must-have-physical-exam

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/04/27/montreal-migrantworkers-swine-0427.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada

You'll notice that these workers are needed due to lack of Canadian workers and not due to searching for the lowest wages. You'll also notice the strict monitoring that is taking place. Sound like the US? No? I wonder why .


The 3rd link addresses why Canada has the immigration policy it has. It is nothing like the US.

[pampango]

29. If you accept that immigrant "workers are needed due to lack of Canadian workers and not due to

searching for the lowest wage" then we may be in agreement. We just need "strict monitoring" to make it work. I would have thought you believed that the increase in the supply of workers through immigration would lower the wages current Canadian workers can demand from employers.

"Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world."

"In 1995 economic research firm DRI-McGraw Hill Inc. ...(t)hey acknowledged that immigration comes with short term costs , but argued that in the long run immigration boosts employment and economic output . One of the most ringing endorsements of a high immigration rate came from the 1991 report by the Economic Council of Canada found that the economic benefits to Canada of immigration were fairly small, the benefits to the newcomers themselves were extremely large . The report concluded that "it would be hard not to recommend an increase when immigrants can gain so much and Canadians not only do not lose but actually make slight economic gains.""

Studies have shown the same long term benefit from immigration in the US. Canadians realize the value of immigration and provide political support for it. They apparently don't look at them as simply competition for existing jobs but as a source of economic benefit for everyone.

[WriteDown]

32. I think we are in agreement....

I am not anti-immigration, but we need a sensible controlled flow and nothing like our current system. Canada also tailors their immigration policy to attract educated immigrants. We essentially have the opposite policy.

[primavera]

35. Not quite

Actually, the employment-based component of US immigration policy is almost exclusively focussed on educated immigrants - it's almost impossible to get a green card without an advanced degree. US immigration policy tries to attract the best and brightest, which is how the H-1B program came into being, but, of course, everyone hates the H-1B program because it gives attractive jobs to immigrants. Apparently we want the best and brightest, but we want them to work as field laborers. In contrast, Canada uses a point system which awards prospective immigrants points based upon a variety of factors, including language proficiency, employment experience, family members living in Canada, as well as education. It's not a bad system, and it eliminates one of the main evils of the US system, which is the direct competition with native workers our system imposes upon prospective immigrants. In Canada, you get enough points, you get permanent residency and you can go out and compete for jobs just like every one else. In this country, because of our obsession with enforcement measures, the process of obtaining a green card is totally dependent upon being the most uniquely well-qualified applicant for one, single job. If anyone else comes along who's equally well qualified, the immigrant is out of luck, out of about two years of waiting, out of several thousand dollars in legal fees and filing fees, and by then probably out of lawful immigration status. The success or failure of that one job opportunity consequently means EVERYTHING to the immigrant, so it tends to pit the immigrant against US applicants for the job in a quite extraordinary way and produces situations in which lawyers will sit around trying to figure out how to discredit the competing employment applications of US workers so that their client can make it through the hellish process. It's an ugly procedure and I will be the first to admit that it's an area that desperately needs improvement. But the main reason it is as ugly as it is is because the policy goal is to attract only the most superabundantly qualified immigrants and to minimize the chances of anyone sneaking past. It's yet another of those countless instances where a knee jerk reaction produced a not terribly well thought out policy that imposes inordinate hardship upon the applicants and yet fails to achieve the purpose it set out to accomplish. Moral of the story: try to avoid knee jerk reactionism whenever possible, it tends to produce a lot of really fucked-up policies.

[primavera]

34. Japan's "progressive" immigration policy...

... as you put it, is one of the most widely criticized immigration policies in the world. Much like Germany's immigration policy, it is driven by a desire for cultural homogeneity, not by economics, and from an economic perspective, the restrictions on immigration are posing a serious policy crisis for Japan. Because, like many other affluent nations, they have passed zero population growth and are in fact into negative growth. As a result, their population is rapidly aging and there are too few young people available to work jobs and contribute to the tax base needed to support retiring people. Because Japan's economy has been so spectacularly successful up to now, they possess phenomenal capital assets that allow them to manage the problem without opening themselves up to immigration - for now. But it remains an unanswered question how long they will be able to keep it up. So their "progressive" immigration policy is, in fact, extremely expensive and they are paying a very high price to keep their country closed to immigration.

Although Germany too faces a population of declining growth rates, their population is not in as steep a decline as Japan's is, and their immigration policy is considerably less restrictive than Japan's is, so their problem is less acute. But they too pay a price economically for restricting immigration. Like Japan, they're quite wealthy, so they can afford a policy motivated by - as they would be the first to admit - a desire for cultural homogeneity, and, also like Japan, it's an interesting question to see how long they will be able to sustain that luxury.

In sum, the two countries to which you refer have both adopted restrictive immigration policies not out of any progressive motivations or for any economic advantages, but as a form of a cultural protectionism for which they both pay a high price. Not exactly how most people would define "progressive;" rather, that is, by definition, a highly conservative approach to take to public policy.

[primavera]

20. Then again, maybe they know something you don't know

Maybe they've studied the matter carefully and heeded the opinions of the experts who have devoted their lives to studying immigration and have uniformly found that your childishly simplistic anti-immigration allegations don't hold water. Or maybe it's all just one giant conspiracy. I swear, this place is starting to smell like freerepublic when it comes to immigration matters - unthinking, knee-jerk, reactionary scapegoatism. How disappointing.

[WriteDown]

22. Yep...

Just like when Hoffa studied arctic drilling and decided it was a good idea. :eyes:

[primavera]

24. Ah yes, of course, you're an expert

Like everyone else here. No doubt you perform brain surgery, too? I mean, hell, you probably read an article about it once in People magazine, how complicated could it be, right? I swear, I don't know why anyone ever bothers to study anything, since everything is so nicely black and white and the correct solution to every problem is so readily apparent. :eyes:

[KamaAina]

27. He stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once

:P

[WriteDown]

28. So you support ANWR

like the Teamsters? Good to know.

[primavera]

30. Were we discussing ANWR?

How odd, I thought we were discussing immigration. I don't recall having voiced any opinion one way or another about ANWR, but, of course, you're the expert. Btw, when are you going to let us all in on the secret for nuclear fusion? No doubt such a simple matter as that is not beyond the reach of your boundless expertise, after all, you probably read about it while standing in a supermarket checkout line once, so when are you going to let the rest of us in on it? We could really use a clean energy solution about now.

[WriteDown]

31. You don't follow conversations very well do you?

You said:

"Then again, maybe they know something you don't know

Maybe they've studied the matter carefully and heeded the opinions of the experts who have devoted their lives to studying immigration and have uniformly found that your childishly simplistic anti-immigration allegations don't hold water. Or maybe it's all just one giant conspiracy. I swear, this place is starting to smell like freerepublic when it comes to immigration matters - unthinking, knee-jerk, reactionary scapegoatism. How disappointing."

Hoffa and the Teamsters supported Bushler in 2002 on drilling in ANWR as I mentioned previously. I guess by your own admission that he had studied the issue and knew something that you don't :eyes:. Afterall, if you can't trust union "leaders" then who can you trust?

[primavera]

33. Did I say that union leaders were infallible?

How odd, I don't recall saying that, but again, you are evidently the expert, and able to leap tall conclusions in a single bound, so surely you must be right.

My point obviously is not that labor leaders are necessarily experts, but rather that neither are you. Your comments suggest that you understand as much about immigration as you do about brain surgery or about cold fusion, which is to say, not a whole hell of a lot. Yet you, and many others here, feel totally at ease reducing this fantastically complex subject down to a Rovian soundbite and confidently scapegoating an entire population of people whose economic, fiscal, and cultural role you know absolutely nothing about. The most commonly heard argument I hear around here is that immigrants harm US workers. Since the primary purpose of labor unions is to protect US workers, as opposed to protecting Arctic wildlife, the fact that they are in support of measures which you have concluded harm their constituencies ought to at least give one pause to wonder why they would do something like that. Whatever their motivations may be in electing to take this position, I am fairly confident that they are not out of ignorance. I can say that because I've been running into organized labor representatives at scholarly and professional conferences on immigration for many years now and know them to be extremely active and interested participants in the debate on immigration. Whatever else may be said of them, they have at least done their homework. I do not recall ever having seen you at a such a conference and the extent to which you have done your homework is therefore unknown to me. Perhaps, before you go damning an entire community of dedicated professionals and ascribing to them wild conspiracy theories, you might want to consider the possibility that maybe they do know something you don't know, that perhaps there's another facet to this debate that you haven't yet considered, and that maybe this issue isn't quite as simple and clear-cut as you seem to think it is.