Immigration Reform and Hard Times-NYT Editorial

[pampango]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/opinion/14tue1.html?ref=opinion

"The country’s two big labor federations (AFL-CIO and Change to Win) just announced that they are joining forces to support that effort, which includes a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. That’s double good news."

"The administration is saying that it will keep its promise to fix the broken system, even if it means pushing the hottest of hot buttons: legalization, the dreaded “amnesty” that sets the Republican right wing ablaze and makes many Democrats quiver."

"We are also heartened that American labor is speaking with a united voice in hard times, rejecting the false claim that fixing the immigration system will somehow hurt American workers . Even in a bad economy — especially in a bad economy — getting undocumented immigrants on the right side of the law only makes sense."

"Administration officials said President Obama planned to speak publicly about the issue next month and would convene working groups this summer, à la health care, to begin discussing future legislation. Immigrant advocates were ecstatic, though it is important to note that this was not a promise to move a bill, only to start the debate. Even that is not going to be easy. Reform was thwarted in the last two Congresses by obstructionist Republicans committed to the delusion that expelling 12 million people amounts to a realistic policy."

The related NYT new story is at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14immig.html?_r=1&hp .

It is great that the labor movement has unified in support of legalization as the strategy that is best for all workers. I had forgotten that they were unified in support of legalization during the 2007 immigration reform debate as well (in the news story), but were defeated by the repubs' and their favorite seven letter word - A M N E S T Y. We'll see if President Obama has the courage and skill to successfully take on the RW spin machine (Rush, Sean and Fox News are frothing at the mouth now in anticipation). I think he does, but he better be prepared for a tough, dirty fight.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. I'm absolutely for unionizing immigrant workers.

And non-immigrant ones. Far as I'm concerned you can import all the workers you want. You just don't get to pay them less. Minimum living wage of $13 an hour.

[pampango]

2. Agreed. And having those immigrant workers be legal will make that a whole lot easier. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Yep. Full amnesty if you've been here a certain amount of time and obeying laws.

No one should be living in the shadows in the U.S. And having an underclass of workers without the same rights as American workers is unacceptable.

[Romulox]

4. Center/right newspapers pushes center/right economics. Shocker!

Next, maybe the Times can tell us where those pesky WMD are hidden. :rofl:

[pampango]

6. Perhaps, but the NYT editorial is supportive the unions' decision to campaign for legalization.

Whatever one's opinion of the NYT, in this instance they are applauding the action by the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, not opposing it.

[Romulox]

7. Unless you're arguing that the NYT isn't a center/right neo-liberal paper,

your point cuts as wide as it does deep.

[pampango]

8. I am focusing on the content of the editorial which applauds a wise move by organized labor.

I am happy to see positive editorials about organized labor, even if they come from a "center/right neo-liberal paper". It sure beats seeing editorials blasting organized labor.

If you wish to spend your time and effort attacking (or analyzing the political leanings of) the messenger rather than discussing the message, it's your time. Do you have an opinion on the content of the editorial or just on the New York Times? Or is this a case of "If you don't like the message, attack the messenger."

[Romulox]

9. Right, but I distrust the motives of a paper that has been the standard bearer for "third way"

(read: center/right) politics for a decade or more.

"If you wish to spend your time and effort attacking (or analyzing the political leanings of) the messenger rather than discussing the message"

It's called context. It's important. And your cliche is tired and worn out. :hi:

[anonymous171]

5. Legalization would only work if we clamped down on border security.

Just my 2 cents.