What Now?
I'm still trying to figure out on just exactly what issues the Republicans really intend to run on for the presidency?
The latest AP poll shows George W. Bush once again at an all time low of a 32% favorability rating -- with vast majorities opposing every major policy he embodies.
On the issue of Iraq, only 28% approved of his handling of the war, making him about as unpopular as Prime Minister Al-Maliki.
Only 21% of those polled believed America was on the right track.
And when it comes to electoral calculations, a mere 25% of crucial self-identified "independents" gave Bush a nod.
Yet, in this week's Republican presidential debate none of the candidates articulated any serious policy departure from Bush -- except on immigration. Even there, latest polls show a solid majority approving the Bush-backed plan to grant legal status to the 12 million undocumented living in the U.S. In other words, the primary Republican dissent from Bush is on the sole policy of his that has any public support.
To be honest, there is one other area of public disagreement. Most of the GOP candidates vow to eschew the big-spending record of this White House. But again, that's a hot button primarily among the conservative base -- the minority which is going to vote Republican under any circumstances.
So, repeating, where's the beef? What's the "change" that Republicans are going to offer in what is clearly going to be a "change election?"
And don't tell me it's gonna be Fred Thompson. He's got all the freshness about him of a day-old corpse.
---------- + ------------
Meanwhile, the "grand bargain" immigration reform bill has collapsed in the Senate. For this I blame opponents in both parties. The bill was essentially amended-to-death by a fruit salad of Republicans and Democrats who were cynically trying to smother it.
Shame on them.
Here's the bald truth about comprehensive immigration reform: there were only two real-world choices. Either pass an imperfect bill that would at least begin to improve the current outrage of policy. Or do nothing and conform to the current outrage of policy. Period. Compromise or Death, to paraphrase Fidel Castro. Any body who believes differently is living on a different planet.
Now what do we have? From the perspective of the restrictionist Right, instead of bringing some order and some identification to the sea of undocumented in America, we will continue to have 12 million "illegals" around (whom I suppose will continue to serve as convenient scapegoats). And, take my word for it, they will continue to pour across the border -- fortified or otherwise.
From the perspective of the restrictionist Left, those like Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan who helped kill this bill by objecting to the guest worker program, an equally pyrrhic victory has been achieved. In the name of protecting American workers from job-grubbing braceros, as well as protecting would-be guest workers from becoming super-exploited braceros, they have now guaranteed the continued existence of a 12 million strong pool of low-wage undocumented workers -- most of them bereft of any labor or legal protection and not very different from braceros.
Nice going, guys. Never would I have dreamed that I'd find myself agreeing with anything said by Trent Lott who disgustedly uttered: "If we cannot do this we ought to vote to dissolve. "Can we do anything at all?"
June 7th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
“Don’t just do something,” Buddha said. “Sit there.”
Paralysis in government can be a good thing.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Isn’t this partly Lou Dobb’s fault? Him scorning the legislation evening after evening to his large viewership, and whom congressmen are ‘afraid of’ ticking off. And what about talk-radio hosts, and others? Their main victory seems to lie in preventing “amnesty”, regardless of what follows it, the cynical, merciless bastards.
They keep calling the illegals “law-breakers”. As if someone that risked his life to say pick tomatoes for say 5 years, is not worthy of any other label than “a criminal”.
At the same time they keep yearning for “amnesty” themselves, for the trigger happy border patrol agents, and keep crying about them going to jail for shooting an unarmed smuggler. In that case, they were “simply doing their jobs”. Lord forbid the possibility that the migrants on the other hand are “simply doing what’s necessary”. Oh no, they’re just”criminals”, who bring “diseases”, “dis our laws” and “fail to assimilate”.
Some Democrats also seem clearly highly obnoxious and don’t seem to care about what a failure to pass the bill would mean as long as they get their narrow wishes through.
Pitiful kindergarten. If every elected official worked exclusively for his or her own constituency there would never be a compromise. Many politicians seem to operate mainly with the goal of getting a good local response at home. As if, if Texas is happy, it’s somehow good for the country.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
“…they have now guaranteed the continued existence of a 12 million strong pool of low-wage undocumented workers…”
Looks like good gringo capitalism to me.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“Looks like good gringo capitalism to me.”
Yes, and with the help of some supposed progressives. You know who you are.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,487 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans this week:
CAMPOS, Juan F., 27, Staff Sgt., Army; McAllen, Tex.; First Infantry Division.
HIGGINS, Andrews J. , 28, Sgt., Army; Hayward, Calif.; Second Infantry Division.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:30 am
Sure, any immigration reform would be flawed, but this bill was very flawed, and not just the flawed bracero program that would help recreate the situation of millions of immigrants staying in this country in the shadows. The bill also effectively ended family-based immigration, the cornerstone of our immigration system for the last century. A goood argument could be made that blowing up the future for a one-time gain to the current crop of undocumented immigrants (and possibly not that great a gain because the z-visa program was also incredibly messed up) was simply not worth it.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Marc: Here’s the bald truth about comprehensive immigration reform: there were only two real-world choices.
Surely, Marc, you know that there are others, beginning with a dedicated, strong enforcement of our existing laws.
Unlabor Day
The immigration bill will hurt American workers.
If companies who hire illegals face stiff fines and illegals can’t get jobs, there will be less incentive to come to the U.S. and there will be incentives to go back to Mexico without our having to deport them. Will it work? I’d rather give that a try than accept another amnesty bill from Congress similar to those that haven’t worked in the past and containing similar broken promises.
Where’s the fence?
June 8th, 2007 at 6:55 am
I am not bothered by the failure of this bill, because I have decided that I am not very much bothered by the status quo. Having dug deeply into the thinking of some folks who can genuinely be called thinkers (both liberal on this issue, and not; Rodrik, Borjas, Krugman, Thoma, Waldmann, and, others), I conclude that the US is not very much worse off, and the immigrant, sanctioned or not, is likely to be much better off. As best I can tell the failure of the bill prohibits those on the reactionary right from imposing punitive barriers to citizenship, and the goody-two-shoes left from protecting the immigrants from themselves while trying to re-make the world. In short, it keeps us from making the immigrants’ difficult lives more difficult than they already are. From a human flourishing perspective, what’s not to like about the current situation, given the alternatives?
I would prefer something different that gives us a way to actually measure outcomes along a number of dimensions. The problem with an underground economy and a ‘black market’ is you really can’t say you know very much about it, or its effects. The dearth of empirical data turns hyperbolic claims into conventional wisdom devoid of anything except hyperventilating nativist rhetoric, rank fear, righteous indignation, and (dare I say it?) wanking for the sake of wanking. Everyone has a life-clock that ticks now. Immigrant lives are not different in this regard. I have resigned myself to formulating a personal position based on what I can actually observe with a deep abiding belief that people will do the best that they can as individuals given the circumstances in which they find themselves. Nobody promised anybody a rose garden.
Perhaps it would be better policy to find a way to compensate those who can demonstrate that unchecked immigration has actually harmed them in some measurable way, as a result of our country’s inability to formulate an enforceable immigration policy. I am so bone weary of the right’s hyperbolic claims to *illegal* (it’s a misdemeanor folks), and the nattering left’s torment over working conditions (it’s regional and segmented, *if* it exists folks), and both groups hysteria over depressed wages (it’s technology, international competition, and dead dreams of an entitled middle class life folks) that I’ll be relieved to let this issue die for awhile. Based on what I can actually see, and what I actually hear, from the people who are “over running” this country with their “illegal” selves, they are not abused. They claim they are much better off. And, based on what I can gather from what scant reliable numbers that have been collected, it does not appear that the burdens of our ineffective/inefficient social institutions (schools, hospitals, prisons, etc) can be laid at the feet of undocumented workers. Many of them were crappy to begin with, or at the mercy of a privatizing-happy politic. Let’s compensate the economic losers if they can demonstrate harm. Otherwise, I do not find the current situation untenable.
June 8th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Yeah, SR, you’ve got some good points about how flawed this bill was, but on the other hand it was a great opportunity for true progressives to join with McCain, Bush and the National Restaurant Association, et.al. to take the heat off undocumented workers and really stick it to goddammed “gringo capitalism.” You can hear the screams all the way over at the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. Right? No ? Well, whatever. It’s a great deal for folks currently struggling at the bottom of the labor market. Not perfect but the best of all possible worlds. I mean what undocumented workers wouldn’t jump at the opportunity offered by this bill to quit their job(s), go back to their country of origin and pay the U.S. government thousands of dollars on the promise of getting a Z visa and a path to the holy grail of “gringo” citizenship if their paperwork clears ?
(Anyone living in the real world should recognize that this bill would create four classes of workers, as regards legal work status - illegal immigrants who could afford to take advantage of the “amnesty” provision, illegal immigrants who couldn’t afford to and had no one here willing to sustain them while they quit work and enter the “system” by leaving the country, new migrant workers brought in under the bracero program, and everybody else who was either a citizen, legal resident or legal immigrant. My bet is that the largest group of immigrant workers would continue to remain the second - illegal and either unable or unwilling to endure the “Z” visa process - for many years to come.)
June 8th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Now it can be told, as SR and reg point out. The Great Compromise was a camel (a horse designed by a committee).
June 8th, 2007 at 7:38 am
When you’ve got Woody, Barbara Boxer, Lou Dobbs, John Sweeney, Bernie Sanders, Orrin Hatch, Byron Dorgan and the National Review on one side of a bill, and UNITE-HERE, the Chamber of Commerce, Ted Kennedy, George Bush, Father Flotsky, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Marc Cooper and the Wall Street Journal on the other, I’d say you’ve got a classic case of legislation from that other planet Marc refers to.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:11 am
What is the substance of Bernie’s opposition?
June 8th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Marc, you are a moron. Ron Paul has consistently opposed Bush on almost all foreign and domestic policies. Paul easily bested Giuliani in the first debate and Paul has been much better than any of the Dems in opposing this war as well as interventionism in general. Even Fox News admitted many more viewers agreed with Paul than the pro-war apologists in subsequent polls. A “Know
Nothing” to you is someone who opposes illegal immigration. Paul is much better on all
foreign policy and civil liberties questions than
the “progressives.”
June 8th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Reg lays out many of the reasons why this bill was a ridiculous effort at political smog making. I for one will not mourn its demise. But I do want to say one thing about Marc’s constant refrain that the country supports “Immigration Reform.” Well, maybe they do in the abstract but when this bill is presented it is quite a different story. First of all the only polls I’ve seen show that over half of the country has no idea what’s in the legislation. And of the half that does 2/3 oppose the bill. So if the Senators are ammending it to death they are reflecting their constiuent’s will. Funny thing Marc, you love to cite polls showing majorities opposed to NAFTA or the WTO. But when Congress gags at this bill they’re being craven.
On this issue you remind me of the people here who defend Hugo Chavez except they have better arguments.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:39 am
I’m not taking a position so much on immigration as I am on enforcing existing laws. It truly is a matter of principle rather than politics.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Father Flotsky? Yadda yadda yadda, warden!
June 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
For those of you who favor enforcing current laws, give it up. From Anti-Trust laws to immigration laws, this country has no apetite for enforcing laws enacted in a fit of moral clarity or reactionary enthusiasm…if it offends corporate intersts. This is a Nation of big-fish/little fish. But you can pretend the laws mean something if you rest better at night.
Torture and wire-tapping.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Paris agreed with you yesterday Hank. Today her attitude was changed.
Bad girl. Bad girl. What’s you gonna do. What’s you gonna do when they’ve come for you. Well, now we know, and it weren’t pretty.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,492 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
COLE, Timothy B. Jr., 28, Staff Sgt., Army; Missouri City, Tex.; 82nd Airborne Division.
GAJDOS, Shawn D., 25, Pfc., Army; Grand Rapids, Mich.; First Infantry Division.
SOPER, Matthew, 25, Sgt., Army National Guard; Kalamazoo, Mich.; 1461st Transportation Company.
VERDEJA, Justin A., 20, Pfc., Army; La Puente, Calif.; Second Infantry Division.
WATT, Kimel L., 21, Sgt., Army; Brooklyn; First Infantry Division.
June 9th, 2007 at 9:29 am
So Woody, what about that buzz about a pardon for Libby? You must be quite outraged at the very idea, right?
June 9th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I think the schadenfreude about Libby is disturbing. He was a bit player, taking one for the team. He’s being jailed not for helping plan war crimes, but for his role in exposing someone who was furthering American Imperial interests, however personally coarse his actions happened to be.
I’ll be happy when I see people getting jailed for war crimes.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Libby was screwed by a prosecutor who couldn’t come up with an indictment on the charge he was appointed to investigate, so he kept asking questions until he could find someone who remembered as badly as Sandy Berger.
Go to Celeste Fremon’s site for an outrage other than this or Paris Hilton.
June 9th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Woody writes: “I’m not taking a position so much on immigration as I am on enforcing existing laws.”
I have a lot of sympathy with that view, but law is not an immutable thing. If a law isn’t working, and basically can’t work, it should change, if it’s politically possible.
“It truly is a matter of principle rather than politics.”
If the principle you invoke is “the rule of law”, OK. But see above. And also accept that opposition to immigration reform, or acceptance of more draconian immigration reform, is often motivated by other, less-desireable, principles as well.
I admit hypocrisy: I’ve been an “illegal alien” here in Japan, and as my business has prospered, I’ve even hired one from time to time. Japan has its own style of “looking the other way” that helped make both situations possible for me.
How do I rationalize it? Over and above the Rule of Law, I see another principle: human flourishing depends on the right to seek opportunity, so long as it doesn’t harm others. Individual flourishing is the best hedge against the War of All Against All. True, anything that degrades respect for the rule of law hurts us all to some extent, in ways for which there is no accurate accounting. But costs must be balanced against benefits, even where the computation is necessarily approximate. In this, call me an optimist: where the principle of liberty to seek non-harmful opportunities conflicts with the rule of law, the world generally gets better for flouting law. I can’t give you an accurate accounting to support that optimistic assumption; nor can anyone else, I think. But I know that my life is better because of the willingness of some people to let me break the law in the way I did when I was “illegal,” and I also know that I’ve improved the lives of others when I myself hosted “illegals”. (I hate arguments from anecdotal evidence, but it’s all I have here.)
With the failure of this particular (admittedly flawed) bill, I guess I’m with Grumpy Old Man and listener on the sidelines: paralysis of government and maintenance of the status quo may, after all, be the best of all possible worlds just now. It’s too bad, but life goes on.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I’m surprised (as perhaps were other) that Marc, who touts polls left and right doesn’t mention that the most recent Rasmussen Poll indicates that a majority of Americans (presumably legal ones) do not indeed support “the Bush backed plan to grant legal status” to the illegals rather, a whopping 74% oppose this bill, many on just those grounds (and this includes Democrats, Republicans, independents and not a few legal immigrants from Mexico and other hispanic countries.).
You can call them undocumented workers, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, or as the sublimely stupid Harry Reid said “undocumented Americans,” but the fact of the matter is that the majority of them are hear because of the last “flawed bill.” A flawed bill is not “better than nothing,” a flawed bill is bad law.
June 9th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Next to the last line should have the word here, not hear. What ever happened to preview?
June 9th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
So, what do you propose GM? This: “Mrs. Thibodeaux said …“I have a very hard time with illegal,†she said. She proposes that all illegal immigrants be given a 90-day period to leave voluntarily. After that, immigration agents, local police and the National Guard, if necessary, should be mobilized to deport them” …” [NYTimes; Grass Roots Roared and Immigration Plan Collapsed http://tinyurl.com/2lnbqv
I don’t dismiss what I believe to one of the largest core complaints: “
June 9th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Oops! Mouse key spasm….
I don’t dismiss what I believe to one of the largest core complaints: “Her strong feelings about the immigration issue came gradually, she said. A nephew who works as a house painter had trouble finding high-paying work because of competition from illegal immigrants.” And, it a city like Detroit, well paying jobs in the face of diminished auto manufacturing is a very big deal. But that problem began with corporations, not with the immigrants - whatever their status.
And, no doubt stuff like, “Some Mexican teenagers hassled her on the street, seeming to mock her because she walks with a cane. She spotted immigrants shopping with food stamps at the grocery store.” only adds fuel to the fire.
But without any genuine or secure means of confirming eligibility status, what are agencies like social services and employers in general supposed to do when the other arm of the sissors is a discrimination lawsuit. I don’t dismiss those either; I’ve seem them. Of course maybe Mrs. Thibodeaux can ell by looking. I sure as the hell can’t.
June 9th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
You’re right. Where is preview?
And, *in* (not it) a city like Detroit…
… Mrs. Thibodeaux can *tell* (not ell) by looking.
Sheesh!
June 9th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Oh, I dunno, GOM. In the desert a camel can be a darned useful traveling companion.
June 10th, 2007 at 5:28 am
jcummings: I assume you’ve already seen this, or have read the original work… but just in case
NYTimes, “Should We Globalize Labor Too?” by JasonDeParle, highlighting the premise of Lant Pritchett [ http://tinyurl.com/yq7673 ]. As best I can tell, it’s not behind a paywall.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:28 am
That article, frankly, is offensive, as the writer predicted. It is not neither left or right, its state department philanthropic bullshit, out of fear of radicals who call themselves Maoists, but may well improve the situation in Nepal. Whatever may be said, I suggest seeing the coverage of the issue in Montly Review, then judge it against the Times and make your own learned judgement.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I have always meant globalizing labor standards, not legislating third world guest worker programs. Look at how well Third Worlders are doing in Lebanon (sarcasm - there is like one Sri Lankan maid a week getting killed, etc.)
June 10th, 2007 at 7:33 am
I’ve never seen so many factual errors - utter bullshit - in one article. “poverty in India and China” is still a huge issue…the urban bourgeoisie in both countries that these governments like to show us is but a tiny fraction of the population. Every year hundred of Indian farmers undercut by exports kill themsleves. microcredits are a racket. Lawrence Summers is a thug.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Finally, its like what they said in the South before the civil war, without totla dishoensty - that slaves were better off as slaves than in Africa, materially. This isn’t the point. I’m for undrestricted labor mobility, but this type of program is utterly disgusting.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:49 am
I believe I’ve been machine-gunned. Yikes! Okay. Thanks for the clarification jc. Your notion of ‘globalization’ is a bit different than I attributed to you. Clarity is good. Understanding, even better. I wasn’t all that comfortable with Pritchett’s premise for reasons I hadn’t fully thought out. So, will go search for the discussion in the Monthly Review. Thanks.
June 10th, 2007 at 7:59 am
I’m taliking specifically about Nepal in/re Monthly Review….words by Prachanda (head of Maoists) etc. - you weren’t machine gunned - I was just offended by the ideas espoused there.
I’m for globalization of soldiarity which will stop capitalism - a project that can’t be done “in one country” - not to create guest workers and hollow out Zambia…I’m not a Jeffrey Sachs fan but his heart’s in the right place and he has a goodl ine there.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Richard Rorty RIP
I guess some things aren’t relative
June 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
“Illegals have no right to be here”.
Therefore they cannot be forgiven?
June 12th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
[...] thanks to Radio Open Source’s show on the bill’s defeat, seems to be an exception. Marc Cooper, of course, has also been writing about immigration for, well, decades. How much difference the [...]