Pelosi Suggests Permanent U.S. Slave Class
by Guest Contributor Nezua, originally published at The Unapologetic Mexican
AS SADDENED AND CYNICAL as I have become about humankind in my life, I still nurture a belief in the human heart and the sense of Right. I still feel that in most cases of wrong being done, all it takes is thinking, feeling people getting the real facts of a situation. And the facts of this situation are shocking and revolting to a thinking mind and feeling heart.
Buried in the final paragraphs of this article*, the Democratic Speaker of the House offers the LA Times a shocking idea: That millions of immigrants now in the USA—who are currently a deeply-enmeshed part of our commerce and communities—might be relegated to a permanent status of neither citizenship or deportee. What is left after you strike those two possibilities? As Duke said, an indentured class.
The estimated 12 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally “are part of the U.S. economy. We cannot send them all home, and we cannot send them all to jail, so we have to address it,” Pelosi said.
Any solution would have to be bipartisan, she said, so it may require sacrificing some of Democrats’ past priorities, such as giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
“Maybe there never is a path to citizenship if you came here illegally,” Pelosi said. “I would hope that there could be, but maybe there isn’t.”
—Pelosi says Congress unlikely to approve tax rebate before President Bush leaves office
DREAMactivist points out right away that many New Americans (migrants/immigrants) were in fact brought here. So what does Pelosi’s quote mean in that context? If the immigrant in question didn’t “Come here illegally,” but is a child who was brought here illegally? Does Nancy Pelosi believe that the child should then be relegated to detention? An indentured status? Permanent US Guest Worker in the Land of the Free?
Surely, Nancy Pelosi is in a position to realize that undocumented migrants are not undocumented out of choice–we CANNOT become legal no matter how much we want to. Hello? What part of legal immigration don’t you understand? Those of us brought here by our parents illegally CANNOT become legal without legislation such as the DREAM Act or Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Additionally, requiring us to go home means a 10-year ban and separation from our families–what sort of family unification plan is that?
And of those who are not brought here by parents, but who make these horrific and risky journeys to become Americans, Jeff Yang (and Karen Narasaki) has some words worth considering:
“We’re now in an era [where politicians imply] gradations of American-ness,” says Karen Narasaki, executive director of the Asian American Justice Center. “People in small towns are more American than those who live in cities. People in the middle of the country are more American than people who live on the coasts. People who live in New York, L.A., San Francisco, well, they’re not really ‘American’ at all, which is fascinating, because those are the cities that epitomize America to the entire rest of the world.”
On this gradated scale, immigrants are the least American of all, despite the fact that they of all people have made the conscious choice to embrace America, rather than being American by accident of birth.
“As [former congressman and Secretary of Transportation] Norm Mineta is fond of saying, ‘Immigrants leave the country of their birth to come to the country of their heart,’” says Narasaki. “It puzzles me why people would think that naturalized citizens are somehow ‘less American’ than people born here.”
Maybe I’m being a tiny bit extreme in my titling of this post. And yet, I’m not sure how else to handle this ongoing antipathy that Democrats have toward addressing immigration in realistic, humane, timely, and American way. Remember, the whole idea of the USA is built on people leaving bad situations to find opportunity, to find their dream in a land of liberty and freedom. When I try to square that feel-good babble with the way migrants are being ignored and exploited today, I get the same feeling as when my high school so many years ago tried to force me to stand with everyone and mindlessly chant Amerikan pablum to a flag. (And yes I refused and yes at 15 in 1984 I was not part of some popular movement it was just me and no I don’t Hate America™, but I do detest outright hypocrisy and manipulation and groupthink).
I’d love to believe in the USA’s ideals. In fact, I do believe in many of them because as penned, they are damn good ideals. But we ain’t living them in far too many instances. So if Democrats are going to back away from this before they even make it in the White House, what the hell can we expect from them once in power? Oh, how that Nancy Pelosi loves to swipe things off the table…
Still think that electoral politics is going to solve the immigration issue? Or that being a Democrat means a magic answer to save Latinos once we, as a sleeping giant that everyone keeps talking about, vote? Gracias to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is keeping it real by stepping away from offering a path to citizenship to immigrants.
— Nancy Pelosi Proves that Dems Aren’t Immigrant Friendly Either
I hope they don’t think that they can ignore the hardships of millions of people and their families and friends and still have a faithful constituency. This is not the days of old, my friends. Things are changing in this nation, this nation is made of change. Don’t miss the boat, Dems. Don’t assume that you have a free ride in this two-party system.
I for one am not going to sit back and quietly give the Democratic Party a pass on immigrant rights. Nancy Pelosi–and the party more broadly–needs to understand that we will make noise about this. If they believe they can sell immigrant communities down the river AGAIN next year, we will show them otherwise.
If they thought we’ve been tough on the GOP, they haven’t seen anything yet. The thing is, we didn’t expect the Bush administration to listen to us. They have ignored us for the last 8 years; we grew accustomed to it.
DREAMactivist points out a good reason why we suddenly may be hearing this retraction now (and in various places, so don’t let me hear about a “misquote” or “misstatement.”)
Because Democrats are receiving cash infusions from the Prison Industrial Complex.
In the late 1990s, the Corrections Corp of America (CCA) overbuilt many detention facilities following the “if you build it, they will come” rule. According to Anton Hie, an analyst in the Nashville office of Jefferies and Co. who covered industry leader Corrections Corporation of America and its closest competitor, the GEO Group, “There was a lot of promise of new inmates that never came … It kind of all came crashing in.” States stopped contracting after high-profile escapes, riots and other scandals and subsequently, stocks came crashing down.
In 2000, the CCA had reported a net loss of $253.5 million but that is history with a 470% boom in immigrant detention over the past 15 years. CCA finally banged a lucrative deal that year–the former INS came to their rescue to house 1000 detainees at the CCA-owned San Diego Mesa Facility, and hence, saved the private detention industry from collapse, giving rise what Roberto Lovato and other prominent scholars call the migrant-prison complex. With 32,000 immigrants behind bars, some indefinitely await hearings, some commit suicide, some are dehumanized and abused, and others sedated with psychotropic drugs upon deportation, the numbers are only growing for ICE, CCA and sadly, the numbers behind bars. Today, the ICE, U.S. Marshals and Bureau of Prisons account for 40% of CCA’s revenue (13% from ICE at $1.5 billion)–which controls a little under half the private prison beds in America. Last year, the CCA reported a net profit of $133 million.
So it’s very simple and very sick and very sad. The USA’s philosophies of profit and punishment have morphed out of control and created a perfect chasm where millions of human beings can be shoved and slid and trapped into being both captive and battery in this machine…and only certain “fringe elements” of our culture will make a big deal out of it.
The thing is…the Democratic leaders abdicating their duties to the People and the ideals of the land make a mistake in their math. This is no fringe element. We are millions strong and we grow every day. I work with many impassioned and educated and active and intelligent people who lend their extensive abilities and efforts to this fight every day. And as saddened and cynical as I have become about humans in my life, I still nurture my belief in the human heart and sense of Right. I still believe eventually the number of us who see this situation as a crime against our purported and stated ideals will grow yet larger and much more visible. I still feel that in most cases of wrong being done, all it takes is thinking, feeling people getting the real facts of a situation.
Factor this into your talk about Change, Democratic politicians. Or ware the consequence.
—–
update: UndergroundUndergrads have the right idea, capping off their post with this:
Lastly, if you want to let Speaker Pelosi that a path to citizenship is vital to immigration reform, give her a call. Her number is (415) 556-4862.
*Ed Note – The referenced link is no longer operational. A search of the LA Times website does not have any such words or phrasing. However, the Associated Press has the same comments from Pelosi, dated October 17th.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
B wrote:
Good post.
Re: the title, I admittedly was put off a bit by it. I do indeed think that this system is *economically* similar or at least resonant to that of slavery in the US South, but on other levels, I think that the situations are different to the extent that equating them does a disservice to discussing both. Strikingly, being brought over to the US illegally by one’s parents is not the same as being part of the slave trade (I’m talking about that of the US South since we’re talking about immigration in the US, but the situation of international sex slaves seems distinct from this situation as well.) Looking at slave narratives from the US South, a huge issue is what scholar Orlando Patterson would call “natal alienation;” or the issues that arise from not knowing who one’s parents are/were, or any part of one’s family history. (Looking at everything Patterson has said, some of it is troubling, but I don’t believe it makes this less useful) I don’t ever want to underestimate the difficult situation of not being a citizen in this country, but I also would not want to suggest that it is the same as being chattel, as slaves were in the US South. Getting away from academic stuff, one merely has to go through different neighborhoods in NYC to see the ways in which immigrants–legal or otherwise–have been able to retain their language and traditions in a direct (as in, not a part of a re-claiming process as some African-American traditions) way that was not available to the descendants of slaves in the US South.
I guess I’m making a point to bring all of this up because I wonder if equating being an illegal immigrant to being a slave isn’t more divisive than uniting… I’ve been more empathetic with the plight of illegal immigrants as a result of hearing about the specific issues of that situation than having it equated to slavery (I’m a black woman). When the latter happens, I tend to get frustrated with the notion that people still don’t get what slavery was and/or how the situation went beyond issues of economics and citizenship.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 8:51 am ¶
B wrote:
Oh, I forgot to mention that I think the ways that current immigration issues break up families is indeed extremely significant, even if people are able to know who their parents are and retain some family traditions. I don’t want to suggest that I think that being separated from one’s family isn’t a big deal simply because one knows who that family is.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:05 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@B – excellent analysis.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:15 am ¶
Cynthia wrote:
But if one processes all the illegal immigrants, making them legal, wouldn’t that cost a lot of money? Isn’t the US trillions in debt or something?
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:16 am ¶
Jack D. wrote:
Pelosi herself doesn’t suggest a permanent slave class. Yes, we can come to that conclusion with logical connections to other sources who have thought out the problem. But Pelosi didn’t go there. This column headline is misleading.
(Feel free to delete this message, whether you correct the header or not.)
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:18 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Jack D. -
No, your comment is fine. I debated a bit the titling of Nez’s post, but he already included this line in the piece:
Maybe I’m being a tiny bit extreme in my titling of this post. And yet, I’m not sure how else to handle this ongoing antipathy that Democrats have toward addressing immigration in realistic, humane, timely, and American way.
Which I feel is a good explanation. It is also ripe for disagreement, so feel free to flesh out your thoughts. He may find time to drop by the thread.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:24 am ¶
Lauren wrote:
I think this is a willful misinterpretation. In the quote provided, Pelosi specifically states that she doesn’t want this outcome, but that she could see it happening. She gets a lot of abuse from over here on the left, which I attribute to the fact that a) she is not just a woman but a housewife as well, and b) that she doesn’t talk the game, and is prone to just saying things like this- things that she doesn’t want but expects. But the fact is that under her watch the House has become significantly more liberal than the Senate. If you want to put pressure on her, that’s always great. But you can’t possibly attribute all anti-immigrant sentiment to her. You should be railing against those who actually believe this is right.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:29 am ¶
Yvette wrote:
I understand and appreciate the post. I find it interesting in combination with the John Lennon one, as well as other recent discussions about whether “_____ is the new _______.”
Here is the thing about rhetorical comparisons (such as metaphors and similes–come on–go ahead and channel your inner H.S. English teacher!): they depend on the more familiar thing that is being likened to the newer, less familiar thing *actually being very familiar.* So to say that something “smells like a rose” depends on the hearer of the message being familiar with roses and thinking that roses have a pleasant smell.
The problem with saying immigration is like slavery, or that women are n******, is that this assumes that there is a deep appreciation and understanding about slavery or the n-word labels.
This is an assumption that, IMO, simply cannot be safely made. There are, of course, folks who really have done their homework and are far along the path to anti-racist reflection who may well have such a deep understanding. (And I think the Unapologetic Mexican is one of these people.) For them, making these comparisons may be a legitimate and reasoned exercise.
But most people are not in this category. As such, hearing comparisons using “slavery” or “Black people” or “n*****” or “high tech lynching” will merely scratch a very surface layer of knowledge about these referents–and a very emotional and value-laden level at that.
Long story short: In general I find these kinds of juxtapositions to not be helpful if the goal is to produce real dialog and understanding. (If, however, the goal is to create an emotional, knee-jerk reaction then maybe they are successful. But if so, then “successful” towards what ends?)
Lots of other thoughts about this, but I do not want to divert attention any more than I already have from what I feel to be an excellent post and an important topic. I look forward to learning more from the thread conversation.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:49 am ¶
Elisabeth wrote:
“relegated to a permanent status of neither citizenship or deportee”
It’s called “legal residency,” and I’ve been looking for ways to get it since middle school. I’ve had an A-1, a G-4, and a G-1 visa, and a work authorization card, but no viable road to citizenship — or even permanent residency — besides sponsorship by an employer (which is extremely difficult to attain) or marriage to an American citizen (which I’ve always found to be somewhat demeaning, even if my current relationship may be heading that way).
It sounds as though Pelosi is proposing to offer them green cards, also known as permanent legal residency. Forgive my cynicism, but it really could be worse.
Of course I would love to be a dual Swedish and American citizen, but failing that, any assurance that I could stay here beyond 2012 (when my visa expires) sounds extraordinary, whether it comes with voting rights or not.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 10:01 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
I agree that modern-day immigration is not comparable to what African-Americans experienced during slavery and that the comparison is not useful.
But… there are other modes of slavery, both in the past and present. Some trafficked immigrants are really, truly, literally enslaved. I’m thinking of a horrific case that came out in the 1990s, where a group of traffickers had lured whole communities of deaf Mexicans to the U.S., then locked them into urban labor camps and threatened to kill their families if they tried to communicate with anyone during their daily begging rounds.
Also, different forms of slavery in the past were different (I’m not saying better or worse, just different) from U.S. slavery. For example, slavery in the classical world.
My biggest source of dread is not what Pelosi is talking about, but fringe and nativist threats to abolish the 14th Amendment (Ron Paul wanted to do this). The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, among other things. If anyone is familiar with countries that don’t have birthright citizenship, immigration plus no birthright inevitably equals the terrible situation of stateless children, citizens of no nation, forming a permanent caste-like underclass.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 10:40 am ¶
M. Hermes wrote:
I have to second the sentiments stated above in relation to titling the post. I think this puts up more barriers and I’d hardly equate immigration status to being a slave. Last I checked, even if someone was brought here for immigration it is still feasible to go back (though how difficult this is I don’t know). But I do think that there are multiple sides to this debate and we should be putting pressure on politicians not to make people legalized but improve work conditions both here and abroad.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 11:12 am ¶
KuriusJurge612 wrote:
I don’t really buy that Nancy Pelosi believes that. That headline makes big leap from a sort of delibertately vague Politician-speak to a very damning assumption.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 11:31 am ¶
Iggles wrote:
Immigration is such a complicated issue. I admit, I haven’t given it much thought.
@ Elisabeth -
I have a couple friends who got sponsored by an employer. It is a very stressful process. However, they were both able to make it through the process and have good jobs.
On one hand, illegal immigrants becoming citizens is unfair to all immigrants who’ve done it the legal way. Through sponsorship, legal residency, or naturalization these people have got through the arduous process and paperwork.
On the other hand, this post touched on the plight of children born to illegal immigrants. Shouldn’t those born in the US automatically become citizens?
I think there is no easy answer to that question.
I’m inclined to think no. However, these children should be given a path to legal residency and then citizenship down the road. With the exception of those with criminal records. This way makes sense because it allows for a legal way to reside in the country, doesn’t not automatically reward illegal immigrants with citizenship rights, and weeds out criminals.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 11:31 am ¶
nezua wrote:
haha! okay, okay! sorry for the title.
now let’s talk about the dems ignoring this human rights issue that is crushing communities right and left.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 11:43 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
@Iggles: “On the other hand, this post touched on the plight of children born to illegal immigrants. Shouldn’t those born in the US automatically become citizens?”
They already DO become citizens!!! That right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The same few sentences that granted black people full constitutional rights (although in practice, this was not fulfilled) also grants birthright citizenship.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Removing birthright citizenship from the Constitution would be a horrible step backward.
One common issue facing immigrant families is that although children are citizens, the parents are not, and if they’re deported the children have to go with them because they have no other means of support. But these issues should be separate from the 14th Amendment.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 11:46 am ¶
Lisa wrote:
Maybe indentured labor is a better comparison?
Thanks for posting these; immigration is the one big human rights issue in the US that I feel gets danced around a lot, and the one I feel most strongly about.
There needs to be structures in place towards legality if not naturalization. Legal immigrants after X years and a test can gain citizenship. How about illegal immigrants after Y years and another test can get legal status, and X+ years and a harder test can eventually achieve citizenship?
I wish US citizenship wasn’t an entitlement by birth, and oh how I’d love to see the nativists have to undergo a civics test every decade. But, with the legacy of Jim Crow, I don’t think America could ever safely go there. Too bad, it would be nice to ship the frothing nativists off to Mexico.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 11:47 am ¶
B wrote:
@atlasien: Preach it!
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 12:13 pm ¶
roschelle wrote:
In spite of all the race card throwing, hatred and intolerance that has surfaced in the last few weeks surrounding this historical campaign…there is little doubt that we still have come a long way….especially after reading that the 109 year old daughter of a former slave cast her vote for Barack Obama….Yes We CAN!
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 12:51 pm ¶
steph wrote:
I don’t think Pelosi was trying to suggest that we enslave illegal immigrants.
However, I am once again so disappointed in her suggesting that democrats might have to sacrifice some of their ideals for a bipartisan effort. I am sick of her sacrificing democratic ideals, rolling over and selling out good things and good people and voting the way republicans want her to vote.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 3:48 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
I’m going to offer a suggestion as to exactly what kind of pressure we might put on our Congresscritters, in order of political possibility.
Much of the “path to citizenship” debate is around people who are committing what amounts to a civil violation. Anti-immigrant groups have actually not had any success in criminalizing visa violations, though the violators are treated like criminals. That is, in a legal sense it’s like a parking ticket. There is no such thing as a felony immigration violation.
OK, so what? Well, a lot of the problems for people here legally and not relate to the high costs and byzantine rules around getting your visa. My wife went to do her interview a while back — remember, she’s legal, she’s married and has a good job (better than mine
).
But the line to do a simple piece of paperwork went around the block in Newark. It was ridiculous. They have three — count ‘em three — people working to process 30,000 visas. If those people never slept it would still take months.
So what do we do? We tell Congress: whatever problems immigration law has now, send more money to the USCIS and hire enough people to do the job. Until we process all the people waiting you can’t even get a handle on the other problems you have. It should not take 8 months to get your green card in the mail when you have filled all the rest of the requirements.
It’s simple, requires no change in existing law and is a huge first step, and politically it’s a win for most officeholders because nobody has to give anything up and it offers a wee bit o’ pork for most districts.
Which brings us to the next thing we ask for: reduce the visa fees.
France isn’t exactly immigrant-friendly and it’s $100 to get a work visa. That’s it. The EU generally is so much cheaper it’s amazing Mexicans and other folks aren’t lined up — for the cost of a single US visa you could get the visa and the plane ticket. It’s $900 to file the paperwork with USCIS, and we haven’t even gotten to lawyer’s fees. It also takes forever.
Again, none of this requires legislative changes, per se, as the fees are set administratively. But there are Congresspeople who can apply pressure to USCIS.
Bring down the cost of visas, reduce the waiting times, and even complicated rules are less of a problem. And it helps put the coyotes out of business. One reason the coyotes exist is the high cost of a visa and long waiting periods.
Remove those, and one major reason for the “market” for getting people in the country is gone — no reason to pay a coyote if doing it according to the rules is cheaper and faster.
Then we get to the next step: labor laws apply to everyone, no questions asked.
They do already, theoretically, but this would require asking Congress to disallow asking about a person’s immigration status when investigating workplace wage/OSHA violations.
That’s more politically difficult to do. But it attacks the demand for exploitable labor. If i have to worry about paying everyone no matter their status, then there’s no reason to hire undocumented immigrants purely because they won’t complain. I should note that most other industrialized nations do this, and they criminalize such violations on the part of employers.
And yeah, I don’t agree with the way the post frames Pelosi’s comments either. But other people have already brought up the reasons why. I do think there is a huge human rights issue here, but what I proposed above is one step in addressing it, I think.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 4:10 pm ¶
oterhog wrote:
@Elisabeth–with all due respect, I don’t think it is fair to compare your struggles with obtaining permanent residency or citizenship with the struggles of most undocumented immigrants in the US. Undocumented Mexican immigrants usually arrive in the US after going through the extremely dangerous and often traumatic journey through the desert with a coyote. I’m assuming that you’re from Sweden? If you are, I’m guessing your journey here was much more pleasant in comparison.
Also, most undocumented immigrants don’t have the privilege of having *any kind* of visa or work permit, thus their undocumented status. I know many people who are undocumented that would be so incredibly grateful to have even a work permit, because that way they would be able to get a better paying job (possibly with benefits) and would have the privilege of not worrying about an employer taking advantage of the fact that they’re undocumented and exploiting them.
Finally, undocumented immigrants are typically people of color. As such, they become racialized and marginalized in this country. I’m not aware of this happening with white people trying to immigrate here from Northern Europe.
So, I’m not trying to say your situation doesn’t suck, but it is a lot worse for most immigrants of color than it has been for you.
Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:58 pm ¶
Elisabeth wrote:
oterhog, in no way was I trying to diminish the struggles of those whose journey here was more difficult than mine. I only meant to point out that permanent legal residency (and the work authorization that comes with it) is hardly akin to slavery, but in fact a rather desirable status that is at present very difficult to attain.
It does irk me sometimes that I’ve been here legally for almost a decade and no one’s ever offered me a path to citizenship or permanent residency, and that is selfish, but that wasn’t my point here.
Posted 30 Oct 2008 at 1:03 am ¶
Alex wrote:
Long time reader, first time poster. Also, full disclosure, Yellow Dog Democrat (I work for the Party).
I’d like to echo the sentiments made by Elisabeth, Jess, atlasien, and Lauren.
First, by simply saying that illegal immigrants may not be granted citizenship, Pelosi has not condemned them to being a permanent underclass in this country. As has already been pointed out, many people in the United States are permanent residents. They can come and go as they please, they are guaranteed all Constitutional protections (other then the right to vote) and they live their lives like any other American. In fact, if I were an illegal immigrant and this is what I got because the Republicans refused a path to citizenship, I’d take it. It’s a fair deal. I get access to Medicare (which I may or may not have paid into-depending on when I came to the U.S. ; my grandmother didn’t but she was a PR and got it), Medicaid, Social Security Disability, police protection, labor laws, environmental laws, and the list goes on.
Second, as was previously pointed out, the U.S. has land right citizenship. We are one of the smaller amount of countries that do. Most (like in Europe) require your parents to have been citizens in order for you to gain citizenship. If your child was born here, s/he is a U.S. citizen, full stop.
Additionally, all the points made by Jess were excellent. Reform of the immigration service by providing massive additional resources will greatly alleviate this problem. Changing the system to allow easier immigration (easier access to work visas) will greatly diminish illegal immigration. Who the hell wants to cross the dessert where people might shoot you if it’s ridiculously easy to get an American work visa and come over in a nice air conditioned bus? And, again as Jess points out, we must enforce labor standards across the board. Doing that is a win for labor (and the country as a whole) everywhere-not just illegal immigrants.
Finally, and this is a small personal gripe of mine, but let’s all sit back a moment and remember where we’ve been for the last 8 (14 years if you count back to the ‘94 revolution) years. Republican control has squandered so much of what we’ve built and particularly hurt and demonized illegal immigrants for multiple reasons, including issues of race and class. For Pelosi, to simply say that a punishment of being here illegally might be you don’t get to vote – BUT YOU STILL GET EVERYTHING ELSE, it’s no where close to being the deport them all mantra of the Republicans. We should also remember that the Kennedy-McCain (of which McCain no longer supports) immigration bill of 07 worked towards citizenship. That’s Ted Kennedy guys-giant liberal, major player in the Democratic Party, and political dynasty giant. So just cause the D’s are in power and they don’t do everything we want, doesn’t mean we should forget what the other side does and tell them to “ware the consequences”. Remember getting greedy is what screwed over Wall St, and the rest of the country with it. We’ve got to be reasonable people. (And I’m by no means a centrist, or Independent. I’m very liberal, but a pragmatist, I’ve worked in Congress and seen how things work).
And if someone doesn’t like the solution presented by Pelosi, and has to offer citizenship (which by the way would, from the U.S. perspective, nullify other citizenship(s) and which these immigrants may still want), please run for Congress, become Speaker of the House, and do it.
Nancy Pelosi is not above making mistakes, but this is not one of them. Again, she’s made the House much more liberal (think oil drilling) and was basically the one to help take back the House in 06. I’d rather her then Newt Gingrich or even Dennis Hastert.
Posted 30 Oct 2008 at 10:05 am ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
“Remember, the whole idea of the USA is built on people leaving bad situations to find opportunity, to find their dream in a land of liberty and freedom.”
But is it really? It’s hard to see that idea as anything other than myth when you consider that the country was founded on genocide and slavery. The whole idea of the USA is also built on putting people in bad situations by stealing their land and kidnapping and enslaving them.
Posted 30 Oct 2008 at 4:34 pm ¶
bradski wrote:
Lots of people are permanent residents. Right?
I think your “slave” analogy is way off base.
Posted 31 Oct 2008 at 2:30 pm ¶
wtblkchic wrote:
“But is it really? It’s hard to see that idea as anything other than myth when you consider that the country was founded on genocide and slavery. The whole idea of the USA is also built on putting people in bad situations by stealing their land and kidnapping and enslaving them.”
This “whole idea” idea of your’s concerning this country’s foundations was merely a consequence of those people “leaving bad situations” to realize their “dream in a land of liberty and freedom”. ( Not that I condone such a thing, i’m just being realistic.) People are people… The sooner the world stops romanticizing what this country is/was the better off they’ll be.
Immigration policies, however flawed and unfair they may be, are designed to protect the interests of legal citizens. Yes, I am looking at this issue in terms of dollars and cents. But to allow all illegal immigrants citizenship is an incentive for economic disaster. I don’ t understand this sense of entitlement that some have regarding citizenship. If stealing is wrong, why should we treat illegal immigration any different. Why are we rewarding those who defy the law?
Posted 31 Oct 2008 at 8:23 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
@wtblkchic –
little late to this party, sorry. Anyhow, just what is an illegal immigrant stealing from you? A job? If they were legally> able to work, with all the protections that gets you, then there isn’t any greater incentive to hire than than there is to hire you.
Let’s clear up a few myths here. First, the immigration to the US, while large, doesn’t make that big of a difference in the population, except in terms of providing one-time growth. That is, if we made every single undocumented person a legal resident or citizen tomorrow, that would increase the US population by 3%.
The point here is that “protecting” legal residents often ends up doing just the opposite. When I can illegally hire a bunch of people who can’t complain about working conditions because they will be deprted, you lose. Why hire you when I can go to someone I can abuse? (Not because I am evil, but because it is simply profitable).
Next myth: they take away jobs. Yes and no. The US isn’t one gigantic labor market. It is several regional markets. They all react differently to immigration, legal and not. But generally speaking people go where the jobs are, so it isn’t at all clear that levels of immigration make any difference. Whether undocumented workers compete directly with those already here as citizens or residents would depend on the kind of job it is and whether labor is a major cost of the work. So, for instance, a car company actually has a disincentive to hire people like that because the cost of labor for a car is tiny. (It’s measured in man-hours to make one, not the hourly rate — and the number of man-hours in a car is not big).
Other myths: undocumented people don’t get many “welfare” benefits, except maybe emergency room care, if you count that. They aren’t any more likely to be criminals than anyone else.
Also, the “violation of the law” is a more complicated question than you make it out to be. I explained already it’s a civil violation, not a criminal one. I don’t see how it’s “rewarding” a civil violation when you provide a way for people to not have to violate the law in the first place.
If you have ever seen immigration rules, they are full of double-binds. That is, there are many situations where it is insanely difficult to follow the relevant rules. For instance. when you get a new visa, the government asks that you leave the country, go to the consulate in your home country, and then come back in. That’s just plain stupid when it’s a friggin’ stamp in your passport. Especially for people who don’t have loads of money.
When you get married, there are several visa combinations you can get — like one for when you are engaged and basically asking permission to travel. But the processing takes so long that you never get to use the thing — it’s easier to get married ASAP and hope your visa doesn’t run out before your status get approved.
Or the fact that you are not allowed to work while an application is pending (without a special dispensation). That’s also just plain stupid. How the hell are you supposed to support yourself? God forbid someone demonstrate they won’t need government benefits!
There is no provision for people born here to those without visas. Deporting parents of children is also simply stupid and counterproductive.
A lot of us are asking for just a little logic to the way visas are given out. And a simpler system — you are either allowed to work here or not, with no distinctions based on the job would be nice. Not paying thousands to follow the rules would be nice also.
Posted 02 Nov 2008 at 8:14 pm ¶