POLITICALLY, WHO WILL THE IMMIGRATION COMPROMISE HURT MOST?

No surprise that Bush came down on the side of his big money contributors-- the ones who want cheap labor-- and ignored the unwashed GOP base of bigots and xenophobes. His Regime and "a bipartisan group of senators reached agreement yesterday on a sprawling overhaul of the nation's immigration laws that would bring an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants out of society's shadows" while making believe it will also stiffen border protections and crack down on employers of undocumented workers (sheer nonsense meant as a sop to angry white people). The compromise is 380 pages long and is being looked at skeptically by liberals and conservatives alike. Organized Labor fears that the Bush plan "would depress wages and create an underclass."

Wingnuts are ready to hit the streets (or drive around in their SUVs honking their horns or shooting their guns). Tancredo was frothing at the mouth at the news claiming "McCain and his allies seem to think that they can dupe the American public into accepting a blanket amnesty if they just call it 'comprehensive' or 'earned legalization' or 'regularization.' The president is so desperate for a legacy and a domestic policy win that he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security." The bill isn't going to move forward without the kind of bipartisan support that has been absent since Bush redefined "bipartisan" to mean "my way or the highway." It isn't impossible, but I doubt it'll come together under the non-leadership of this lamest of lame ducks.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, badly in need of doing something that will convince conservatives that he's more than just a selfish billionaire with shiny white teeth and funny underpants in a weird cult, has decided (at least for now; he flip-flops a lot) to join forces with the Tancredo Know-Nothing wing of the GOP. "I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S. Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."

Another GOP crazy, Marilyn Musgrave, one of the most radical right-wingers in the GOP, says she's looking the bill over but is unlikely to support it. More reactions from the extremist edge of the Republican loony-bin:

* "I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."- Jim DeMint (R-SC)
* "Each one of these Senators should wear a scarlet letter 'A' for amnesty."- Steve King (R-IA)
* "What part of illegal does the Senate not understand? Any plan that rewards illegal behavior is amnesty. You would think that the Senate would have learned their lesson after the 1986 amnesty debacle, but it looks like their idea of a ‘compromise’ is to repeat the failed policies of the past."
* "To my friend Sen. Kennedy, I promise never to work with you again for the people of South Carolina."- Lindsey Graham (R-SC; it sure looks like Miss Lindsey has her panties all tied in a bunch over something; bad shopping day?)

Immigration has been tricky for the presidential hopefuls, more so for the Republicans. The NY Times has a great outline of the various candidates "evolving" positions.


Our pal Pachacutec over at Firedoglake has issued a call to action, Time to Hit the Phones, as a counterweight to the right wing racists who are already flooding the phone lines of "their knuckle dragging, slope headed representatives to ensure that anything that might allow any justice or humanity for the pigmented among us is stricken from the bill." (Pach is so poetic; that's why I love reading everything he writes.)

This is not a perfect bill. It contains some crap to put together some kind of bipartisan consensus. Whatever. But here's where we need to let democrats know we're paying attention, because whatever happens with this bill, the current fight sets up our future fights on behalf of the most vulnerable families and working people among us

Pach, and other civil libertarians and progressives, seem to be coalescing around several important points they want Democrats in Congress to pay attention to. The anti-family nature of some of the provisions cry out for our legislators to insert some clear language in the final version that preserves the family infrastructure protections of current immigration policy. Senator Kennedy was able to protect certain worker rights in regard to portability that are already under attack from reactionaries and must be preserved.


The part of the bill I've been hearing the most complaints about-- from the rationale side, at least-- is that it can create a permanent underclass of exploitable labor. This is unacceptable for our nation, a slave-holder/GOP dream DeLay, Abramoff, Doolittle and other corrupt Republican neo-fascists tried in the Marianas Islands. As Pach puts it, "Congress needs to preserve the principle of creating a pathway to citizenship for those who work hard and play by the rules, without creating a permanent 'temporary worker' underclass, who collectively make it harder for other [working class] Americans to take a step up in life."