Honda introduces bill that would make sweeping changes in legal immigration

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: mercury news

To ensure that issues involving legal immigration don't get lost in the fiery debate about illegal immigration, Silicon Valley Congressman Mike Honda today will introduce a bill that would give green-card holders the same rights as citizens to bring their spouses and children to the U.S.

The wide-ranging legislation, which already has about 50 House co-sponsors and the support of powerful groups such as the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation League, is expected to help build momentum for "comprehensive immigration reform" this year. Two years ago, a reform bill collapsed in Congress amid criticism that it was an "amnesty bill" for undocumented immigrants.

Honda's bill also includes a controversial provision to allow gays and lesbians to sponsor the immigration of same-sex "permanent partners." That issue gained traction recently when immigration authorities tried to deport a lesbian mother from Pacifica to the Philippines.

The law would also increase numerical caps on the number of visas for countries such as Mexico, the Philippines, China and India. People from those countries hoping to immigrate to the U.S. routinely face waits of more than a decade in a system with a backlog of 5.8 million people.

"We're a nation that believes in family values, so to say this is not important to talk about means" that some politicians and activists "are talking out of both sides of their mouths," Honda, D-Campbell, said Wednesday.



Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12514065

[BlooInBloo]

1. Oh.... THAT Honda...

:rofl:

[CatholicEdHead]

60. Exactly what I thought

That Honda wanted immigrants for their plants in the southeast US.

[Shagbark Hickory]

107. ShLOL Cuz I was gonna say....

[msongs]

2. so is Honda gonna have jobs waiting for all these newfound immigrant family members? nt

[OhioChick]

5. Good question. n/t

[saigon68]

15. YES !!! Jobs like Senator Murphy described and advocated.

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





In the 1950s, Murphy entered politics as chairman of the California Republican State Central Committee. In 1964 he was elected to the United States Senate; he defeated Pierre Salinger, Murphy served from January 1, 1965 to January 3, 1971. In 1968, he served as the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee

Murphy had stated that Mexicans were genetically suited to farm labor; because they were "built lower to the ground," it was supposedly "easier for them to stoop." Oddly, some years earlier, in 1949, Murphy himself had starred next to Mexican actor Ricardo Montalban in the film Border Incident, which cast the exploitation of the braceros in a negative light

[pampango]

21. Yep, got to keep those furin' immigrants out to protect 'Muricans.

Don't know that immigrants have ever been welcome here - those that preceded them always resist those who come later - but we have survived waves of immigration in the past and which has produces a cultural diversity that is unique.

Maybe the repubs will cry "amnesty" loud enough again (like in 2007) and again defeat any reform of our immigration laws, so that we can all be saved from the dreaded immigrants.

[WriteDown]

23. With sky high unemployment and the worst recession

in history you want to bring in more people looking for work?

[pampango]

31. Sounds like this bill is designed to reunite spouses and children. Some of the spouses may want to

work, but in many cases the main family worker may already be here and is working. If you are implying that you would be in favor of this type of legal immigration and family reunification, when the economy is doing better, I can appreciate that.

[OhioChick]

37. He's had an anti-American attitude when it comes to employment since he first joined.

[pampango]

110. And it is very "pro-American" to keep away the families of legal permanent residents?

If you're against reuniting spouses and children of legal immigrants, are there any foreigners at any time under any circumstances whom you would deem worthy of admission to the US? Is a total exclusion of foreigners your definition of pro-American?

If being "anti-American" means not believing that we are somehow superior, more deserving or more "equal" than other nationalities, then I plead guilty. Of course, I am also, by your definition, anti-white, anti-male, anti-Christian and anti-old, since I don't believe that any of my other "identities" makes me superior to people who do not share them with me, when it comes to employment or anything else. We need immigration laws (just like we need anti-discrimination and affirmative action laws) that recognize the inherent equality of all people in matters of employment and elsewhere.

BTW, it helps the discussion if you respond to the content of posts rather than your judgment of the poster.

[Romulox]

25. The raison d'etre of a Democracy is to press for its citizens best interests.

Just thought you might like to know this. :hi:

[AlphaCentauri]

29. The nazis used to protect the German citizens interest, didn't they?

I don't think they did a good job with the expulsion of foreigners and the concentration camps.

[Romulox]

33. The nazis also wore PANTS! Thus, pants wearers are fascists! QED!

LOL. :hi:

[dorkulon]

40. Well, now I'm GLAD I'm not wearing any!

Before, I was a little ashamed...

[AlphaCentauri]

49. Germany wasn't a democracy? LOL

:rofl:

yeah, I know democracy is perfect, it can justified any injustice
:hi:

[Romulox]

50. Your logic is unhinged. Calling people who disagree with you nazis is pathetic. nt

[AlphaCentauri]

53. not calling nobody a Nazi

just making the point that a democracy is not a vehicle of justice it's just a form of government, slavery, segregation and exploitation can co-exist in a democracy if the citizens allow it, democracy is not perfect and many times goes against it's citizens own interest.

[Romulox]

81. Neither is Agribusines a vehicle of justice. And yet your interests and theirs mesh nicely

Is it a coincidence that your position on immigration is substantially the same as George W. Bush (the closest thing to a proponent of the Nazi ideology in the modern world, I think) and John McCain, for example?

I don't know, but then again, I'm not the type to smear by association.

Are you? :hi:

[pampango]

35. True, but in a democracy we each get to vote on whether it is in our "best interests" to exclude

immigrants from the country. I have the feeling you and I would vote differently. :hi:

[No Elephants]

67. When was the last time you voted on an immigration bill?

[No Elephants]

65. According to whom? Seems as though the raison d'etre of a democracy is citizen participation in

gubbamint. What is then pressed for is a separate issue. It also depends upon how you define the best interests of citizens. Many would say that America's greatest strength has come from her immigrants/diversity.

Okay, most Native Americans may not be among those who say that, but you know what I mean.

[Romulox]

80. It's in our Constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Preamble to the Constitution (emphasis mine)

"It also depends upon how you define the best interests of citizens."

Everything depends upon how you define it, so that's a bit of a truism. The poster I was responding to has repeatedly made the assertion that it is somehow illegitimate for the US Government and the American people to privilege the welfare of US citizens above that of others--an absurd assertion that she has never cared to defend.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

83. Wow.

Just wow.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

82. No need to. The money earned by the green card holder's current job will be spent to...

...sustain the family in the US, instead of their country of origin.

That'll end up helping the US economy, even if 100% of the family arrivals depend on the green card holder for sustainance (which they won't).

[rschop]

109. re: so is Honda gonna have jobs waiting for all these newfound immigrant family members? nt

Are you kidding? No he wants them to take your job! Maybe he can make unemployment go to 15% so we can go in the financial hole even faster.

[imdjh]

3. On the primary point : Immigration policy is neither fair nor unfair.

Vivek Jayanand of Santa Clara said he is happy that an issue that so deeply affects him will soon be taken up by Congress. He is among a group of more than a million legal, permanent U.S. residents forced to live without their spouses — and in many cases their children. These green-card holders often wait five to seven years for their immediate family members to come to the United States.
Jayanand, a 32-year-old hardware engineer at Marvell Semiconductor, married his wife, an Indian physician, in February 2007. He said the earliest she will be allowed to come is the end of 2010, after Jayanand becomes a citizen — unless the "incredibly frustrating" law is changed before then.
Such waits are intolerable in a society that believes in fairness and in families, Honda and pro-immigration activists contend.

Actually, he isn't forced to do anything. He is a guest in this country and can leave anytime he chooses. Moreover, his case is exactly the primary objection to immigration "reform" ie, making everyone who is already here a citizen in that his first act as a citizen will be to bring in one or more people. The impact of this is the exponential kind of immigration which the nation simply cannot, and doesn't want to absorb.

[musette_sf]

4. +1

i hate to say it but there are a lot of unemployed people in Santa Clara who i wager could do Vivek's job.

[AlphaCentauri]

24. I guess humans are not important anymore as numbers are

can we apply the same analogy to health care, troops deployment, wars, education.
Like is your choice to be a soldier so is your choice to select which wars you fight ... ..?

[Romulox]

26. Poor Americans are ALSO human beings. When will you begin advocating for THEM??? nt

[AlphaCentauri]

28. Tell me you want poor americans to pick lettuce and become rich

that's the dream of the far right, to have minorities doing those type of jobs but not them.

[Romulox]

30. I have no clue what you're talking about. If lettuce cannot be picked at a LIVING WAGE, by citizens

then let them grow it where it may be. Or let salad eaters pay the true price for their "inexpensive food".

But arguing to allow a serf caste because they supply a "cheap" head of lettuce (the true costs are borne by society, rather than the producer or consumer of the lettuce--a textbook "externality") ia not compassion; it is making common cause with the exploiters. And that is the true "dream of the far right". :hi:

[WriteDown]

32. Well said. nt.

[AlphaCentauri]

47. well, then why not advocate for LIVING WAGES instead of attacking the most vulnerable

I know it's much easier to attack the illegals (specially Mexicans) than to get the government rise the minimum wage.

[Romulox]

48. Because it's completely illogical. Raise the minimum wage to $50, while not enforcing labor law

and refusing to secure the border will result in no change--the same workers will continue to be exploited.

At any rate, this thread is about expanding the rights of legal immigrants to bring family members into this country. I notice you wasted no time in attempting to conflate legal and illegal immigration, btw. At any rate, I oppose this as well. In a time of economic collapse, such a measure makes little sense.

[AlphaCentauri]

51. Make no excuses to NOT advocate for a living wage

why not raise the minimum wage to $50 now? wouldn't that incentive citizens to take those jobs? would that take us out of this economic collapse?

[AlphaCentauri]

55. +1 n/t

[Romulox]

79. But I DO advocate for a living wage. Unfortunately, an open border immigration policy

coupled with virtually non-existent workplace enforcement of even basic labor laws almost entirely undermines such a campaign. The Postville Agriprocessor plant that was raided last year has been cited for dozens of child-labor violations, for example. It is, and has been for some time, illegal to employ children in dangerous industries. But without enforcement, what matter is that?

So legalize everyone here today and give them a big raise! They'll be out of work and replaced by new comers tomorrow. What do you think happened to the citizens who use to make a living in the meat cutting industry, for example, and why do you think new citizens would be able to avoid the same fate? :shrug:

[primavera]

71. Ever shop at a MalWart?

Ever buy the less expensive produce at your grocery store? Ever buy a pair of sneakers made in China or a cheap pair of jeans made in Sri Lanka? Ever live in a house that was built using inexpensive migrant labor? If you have, then you too, just like all the rest of us, are one of the exploiters. And you're quite right that our consumption of such cheap goods and services does make us exploiters, but I think you seriously underestimate the extent to which our culture has come to reply upon those ill-gotten gains.

[Romulox]

78. I do not shop at Wal Mart, and if I did, I would not thereby lose the right to speak out

against exploitation of a servant caste here in these United States.

[primavera]

85. No, but if you willingly benefit from the system you criticize...

... it would make you something of a hypocrite.

This is my main beef with critics of immigration: they decry the suppression of wages within certain sectors of the economy, yet still want to reap the benefits of those sectors producing low cost goods. You (by which I mean "you" generically, not you personally) want farm workers to receive good wages and benefits? That's wonderful and I will support you 100% in that. You want cheap goods? Well, I'm less enthusiastic about that one, but, if that's what you want, I respect your right to make that decision. You want both at the same time? Sorry, but that's a mathematical impossibility; you don't get to have it both ways. So choose and be prepared to accept the consequences of whichever choice you make. Sitting around complaining about the injustice of a system the benefits of which you enjoy and which you perpetuate through your day to day consumer choices is simply hypocrisy and it does nothing to further the discussion in a productive direction.

[OhioChick]

39. +1 n/t

[primavera]

59. So I guess you would be okay with the Chinese Exclusion Act?

Remember how we recruited Chinese nationals to come here and build our railroads for us? Because Americans didn't want to go stand out in the sun and drive railway spikes? Well, we got someone else to build our railroads for us, which revolutionized the economy, causing it to expand by about a thousand fold, and, in return for this service the Chinese provided us, we treated them like shit, with even our courts describing them as subhuman (see Chae Chan Ping), and barred them from bringing their families to the US. But that's cool, right? After all, they were just "guests."

I think what Americans need to better understand is the benefits they derive from immigration of which they are not aware. Many people seem to believe that American workers really want to stand out under the blazing sun and pick vegetables. If that's so, then why is it that American farmers advertise for pickers and no American ever shows up to perform the job? American farmers don't discriminate, they're happy to hire anyone who shows up. But no American worker wants to do that kind of backbreaking labor for $10/hour.

"Right," we all proclaim, "the problem is that American farmers don't pay enough to attract US workers!" Okay. I'm not sure whether that's strictly true given that American workers choose to work in places like MalWart that pay far less than migrant workers receive for picking vegetables, but, nevertheless, let's say that's true and that you could get American workers to pick produce if you only paid them enough to make it worth their while. Fine, so, the $10/hr prevailing wage plainly isn't enough, so we're going to have to increase the wage to... what? $15/hr? $20/hr? How much would it take to get you to go out and stand under the blazing sun and break your back for 10 hours straight? $25/hr? Let's split the difference, let's say $20/hr.

Okay, so we're now paying pickers $20/hr. Well and good. Except that labor is the number 1 cost in agriculture and, unlike the banking industry, agriculture doesn't have any huge profit margins they can play around with - not too many multi-million dollar junkets, billion dollar a year executive salaries, caviar stocked yachts, or golden lear jets for these guys. So by doubling the wage you pay to workers, you're now going to have to double the cost to consumers. So tomatoes are now selling for $8/lb instead of $4/lb.

The only catch is, we're still allowing in imports from places like Mexico, Chile, Argentina, etc. And they aren't paying their workers $20/hr, which means that they can still sell tomatoes for $4/lb instead of $8/lb. Now you as a consumer go into your local grocery store and can choose between $8/lb American-grown tomatoes or $4/lb Chilean imported tomatoes, which are you going to choose? If you choose the more expensive home grown tomatoes, my hat's off to you for your patriotism, but I guarantee that you will be one of the very few who makes that choice. So what will happen will be that no one will buy American grown produce, and then there will be no jobs for anyone in American agriculture, paying either $20/hr or $10/hr. Congratulations, you just dismantled an entire sector of the American economy.

Now ask yourself, what's going to happen to all of the jobs that existed supporting American agriculture? How many tractors will John Deere be selling? How many truckers will need to be employed to transport vegetables that are no longer being produced? So what will happen to all of those people whose jobs you just eliminated? What will happen to all of those businesses? I'll tell you what will happen to them: they will be outsourced to those countries whose export agricultural businesses have just received a huge shot in the arm through the abandonment of the US agricultural sector. Why not? Congress these days gives businesses tax credits for firing US workers and moving their businesses off shore, why should agriculture and the businesses which support it be any different? What do you suppose is going to happen to the foreign trade balance if we suddenly have to import 100% of the food we eat?

You see, you just opened up a huge Pandora's Box here, with far-reaching consequences most people never consider. With all of that said, I'm not sure I disagree that immigration should be curtailed. Many developed countries do pay their agricultural workers more, offer better benefits, and employ a greater percentage of native workers in that sector of the economy. But they do so in ways that are not terribly popular in this country. They employ protectionist trade policies, they publicly subsidize agriculture, funded by higher income taxes and closure of loopholes for businesses, in other words, they engage in all of that commie pinko, wealth redistribution, social engineering stuff which is so horrifying to the libertarian, free market, anti-government regulation mindset in this country. Personally, I think we would be a whole lot better off it we embraced more of that commie pinko stuff and told the libertarians to shut the fuck up.

As a percentage of our income, we pay FAR less than any other country on earth to feed ourselves. And that's the way Americans like it - cheap prices for everything. Cheap food, cheap clothes, cheap houses, cheap plastic crap, cheap taxes, cheap everything, cheap, cheap, cheap, keep it coming. Well, there's a price for that imperative, which is that we aren't going to curb the flow of low cost imports, we aren't going to pay workers decent wages, we aren't going to offer reasonable benefits, and we're going to be perpetually hemorrhaging jobs to countries that pay their workers even less than we pay ours, and offer even fewer worker and environmental protections than we do. That is the inescapable price tag of our obsession with cheap goods.

And I for one think that we need to wake up and smell the coffee and undertake some serious reconsideration of our entire economy and trade practices. But until we're ready to do that, attacking immigration is attacking just one part of an economic system which creates the problems which appropriately worry you. And if you attack that one issue without first addressing all of the other issues, you're going to destabilize the economy and have no mechanisms with which to restore stability. In conclusion, immigration is one of those areas where you really need to look carefully before you leap.

[AlphaCentauri]

62. Great post saving it to read it again later

thanks

[No Elephants]

63. I don't think we imported Chinese to do the work bc Americans did not want it. I think "we,"

meaning the railroads, imported them because they would work a lot more cheaply than Americans would, and like in awful conditions while they did so.

[primavera]

66. Undoubtedly

But the point is that we reaped an incalculably huge benefit from them having done that in terms of opening up the country and making transit of goods and people relatively swift, safe, and cost effective. Because of the contribution made by those immigrants, our great-great-great grandparents (or whoever) had jobs they would not otherwise have had, which in turn allowed them to educate their children so that they could get better jobs, and so on and so on. We are where we are today because of that contribution by immigrants. Whether we should have hired them or American workers is a separate issue - my point is that we did hire them, we reaped a huge benefit from them, and they deserved to be treated better than shit to be scraped of the bottom of our shoes once we'd finished exploiting them.

[24601]

111. Not every RR worker was Chinese. I saw a documentary

called Blazing Saddles and noticed that some of the workers were black singers while the bosses were rejects from Green Acres.

[imdjh]

77. You're trying to make a fairness argument and then an economic one

There is no fairness argument to be made on immigration. It's our country, we can choose who to admit and who to exclude. Period. And just as you cannot invite others to share my house or food, you are not entitled to share this country if the people of this country don't want to share it.

As for your economic argument- you left out something so huge it had to be deliberate. The reason that Americans (for the most part) won't take ag jobs at the going rate is because these jobs net only slightly more than welfare benefits. Illegal aliens can't get welfare benefits and legal ones can't get them for a period of years. The balance is between the wages paid in Mexico and points south, and the welfare benefits paid in the US. Agribusiness can hire aliens because the pay is higher than it is in their countries, but too low for Americans to get off the nipple.

Now before you explode. My complaint here isn't that we are providing welfare to children. It's that there is no system currently in place to make it so that a person who is capable of working must work to get benefits such as healthcare. This doesn't just apply to ag workers. There are plenty of people on disability who are capable of being productive, but who would lose their medical coverage and meager support if they take a job, a job which offers no security whatsoever and which would cause them to be dumped from the support system.

And just in case you think that you hold the exclusive franchise on leftist thinking here- I happen to believe that across the board mandatory public service, including working in the fields would be a wonderful addition to the education of American youth. Think about that. If every birth year has to serve one summer in the fields, then we would have a steady supply of ag labor and a steady supply of young people who know what it's like to work hard. We could call it a kibbutz, have camp fires, and sing songs if it would make it more attractive.

[primavera]

86. Yes, they are two separate issues

But I simply disagree with your contention that there is no fairness argument to apply to the immigration debate. Migrant workers don't come here because there are no jobs to be had and they really love to be unemployed. They come here because our companies hire them, in some instances even paying smugglers to bring them illegally across the border. American companies send vans out into the desert along the border with food and water to collect border crossers and bring them to places of safety and employ them in their factories. American companies do this because doing so allows them to offer goods at lower prices than their competitors and they know that the average American consumer will not care whether their vegetables were picked by someone making a fair wage or whether the meat packer who packaged their sirloin was documented or whether the maid who cleaned their hotel room entered the country illegally, all the American consumer will care about is that they got a good or service at a bargain price.

We are therefore complicit in sustaining and indeed encouraging immigration, both legal and illegal. And if we encourage a practice and benefit from it, I believe that we incur an obligation to those who avail themselves of our invitation.

As for my economic argument, I did not leave out the low wage issue, indeed, the low wage issue was a central point of my post, which makes me wonder how you could possibly have missed it if you read my post. As you say, Americans don't take ag jobs because the wages are low. But then, we're the ones who insist that businesses offer absolutely rock bottom prices and then have the temerity to wonder why those businesses don't offer more generous wages and benefits. Well, wonder no longer - just look in the mirror and you will have your answer.

[imdjh]

87. Using tomatoes

I don't know where you live, but in Florida the regular price for local tomatoes is about one dollar per pound. So that means that the tomatoes are grown and harvest and sold at a profit to the distributor who then sell them at a profit to the retailer who then sells them at a profit to the consumer. Clearly, the wages paid to the picker could be doubled without doubling the cost of the tomato to the consumer.

[primavera]

88. You're lucky

That's a great price for tomatoes. I've lived in all sorts of places and have never found tomatoes that cheap.

But that's beside the point. No matter what you pay, whether it's $1/lb or $5/lb, the fact remains that labor constitutes the largest expense in agricultural production. So if you double the cost of labor, there's mathematically no way for that not have an impact on the cost of produce to the consumer. Which - I stress yet again - is arguably fine, just be prepared for the consequences.

[imdjh]

89. BY the same token, if we didn't subsidize McDonald's and Walmart with welfare, prices would go up.

[primavera]

92. You mean through things like food stamps for MalWart employees?

Yes, I think that's true. I know MalWart actually distributes as a matter of course to all of its new hires literature on how to apply for public benefits since God knows MalWart is never going to provide them and, at the wages MalWart pays, the majority of their employees fall below the poverty level and thus qualify for aid. But what's your point? If you're looking for me to argue with you that the American obsession with low prices which sustains places like MalWart and McDonalds is some positive thing, you've come to the wrong place; you'd be preaching to the choir on that one.

[TheMadMonk]

97. Labour indeed constitutes the largest expense of some forms...

...of ag production, however that is as a proportion of "farmgate" price not shelf price.

Several years ago, I did some work on a best practice consutancy project that examined the entire value chain for about a dozen different fruit and veg. Farm gate price is a very small proportion of the price we ultimately pay. The rest goes in packhouses, storage, transport, etc., sustaining the rest of the value chain.

However, raising minimum wage is not as simple as declaring a new minimum wage and expecting it to trickle up the value chain, diluted to a few cents added to the shelf price. Farm gate price is often a price set by the buyer well in advance of harvest.

There is no room for the producer to offer higher wages because his income is set by external forces. Virtually all the profit is in the value chain which these days is often owned by a single entity which may well be the retailer.

[UndertheOcean]

6. wow , title had me thinking for a while

[imdjh]

7. LOL! as in "What next? Toyota introduces a single payer health care bill."?

[msongs]

8. let's hope toyota does introduce single payer, don't think any dems will ever get it done nt

[TheFarseer]

9. OK so now you can just do whatever the hell

whether you're a citizen or not. Why not just put them on unemployment and give them food stamps and treatment for AIDS and a free scooter from Medicare and $5K per year in EIC? I firmly believe we need a nationalist in the White House or we as a country are not going to make it. How can we keep sending all the jobs that can be outsourced overseas and bringing in cheap labor to do the jobs we can't outsource and expect that to work and the whole time give them tax breaks to do it?!?! No one else in the world gives a shit about our country, so we better!

[anonymous171]

10. Xenophobe.

:sarcasm:

[bitchkitty]

20. A nationalist like, say, Pat Buchanan?

One of the things I don't like about my fellow Americans is that many of them are xenophobic.

[No Elephants]

69. You make nationalism seem ugly.

[trthnd4jstc]

11. Green Card Holders are not citizens, and our country is in a depression.

Fix our country, and then the world. I think that Green Card Holders should be allowed to bring their people over, as long as they can support them on their existing salary, or other means of support. Being that our country is struggling, we do not need to bring additional people over here, indiscriminately. It probably should be a bit easier to allow Duly Employed, or Self-Sufficient Green Card Holders the right to bring over their people, in fact that would be a boost to our economy because the local economics of more people buying gasoline, groceries, sundries, and other items here in the US, actually adds to our economic system, hence it is not a drain to have people here to spend their money here, it is only a drain, when people do not have enough resources, including money. We need to not give Carte-Blanche to Green Card Holders being to bring their family here: I am against this bill.

Thanks for the post.

[tomm2thumbs]

12. Reports are that the gay issue may tank the bill if not removed - link attached

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23262.html

“The last thing the immigration debate needs is another politically divisive issue,” said Kevin Appleby, the bishops’ director of migration and refugee policy.

Another major ally, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, called the efforts to slip gay rights into the immigration debate a “slap in the face to those of us who have fought for years for immigration reform.” Rodriguez, who has worked with evangelical churches to build support for a broader immigration bill that would expand visa laws, said that if the same-sex language stays in, it will “divide the very broad and strong coalition that we have built on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform.”

But backers of same-sex couples contend “permanent partners” — two adults in an intimate and financially interdependent relationship — should be given equal rights under immigration law. Too often, gay and lesbian rights issues “are easily discarded as part of the process,” and that needs to change, said Honda, the House sponsor of the bill and a longtime advocate for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. “It’s too big of an issue to me for it to be treated this way.”

The split comes just days before President Barack Obama is scheduled to hold his first White House discussion on comprehensive immigration legislation.

[northernlights]

13. frankly the bill should tank on its own merits

but I'll be grateful for anything that tanks it. We already have too many qualified, ready and able to work unemployed who don't qualify for any help and are losing everything they worked for (such as, er, ME!) while we export all of our jobs...to be taking in the rest of the world.

[pampango]

45. You're probably in luck. The opposition will be from repubs with the support of conservative

immigration groups like CIR and FAIR. In the article the supporters of this, or similar, bill are Democrats - Honda, Leahy, Reid, and Menendez - along with the NAACP and ADL. The opponents will have to come up with something other than the "amnesty bill" cry which has worked so well in the past, since the issue here is legal immigration, not illegal.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

14. What is with the sudden rise of xenophobia on DU lately????

These people are already in the U.S. with green cards. They just want to have their spouses and children with them. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that it's ok for those who enter the U.S. illegally to be here while those who actually follow immigration law cannot be with their families precisely because they follow the law????

As an example, I turned 21 while the rest of my family was applying for green cards. That means that, according to U.S. law, I was considered independent from my parents and had to become a separate petitioner. Had I not switched to a student visa, I would have had to leave my family in the U.S. and go back to Italy by myself and unable to visit my parents and sister in the U.S., because very near relatives of green card holders or U.S. citizens are considered "intending immigrants" and are often denied entry in the U.S.

I had to wait 14 years before I got my green card, because I was in a lower priority category, despite the fact that my father obtained U.S. citizenship to bump me up a category. All the while, I was on a student visa, paying outrageous tuition bills and being mostly unable to work (except for campus employment). Currently, employment is less strict for foreign visa holders, but it certainly was strict then. All this came at a cost to my family (both financial and emotional), all because I would have returned to Italy as an orphan (as we come from very small families).

These people with green cards are not stealing jobs from anyone. They already have jobs and perhaps have had them for quite a few years, since it does take several years to get a green card based on employment. They just seek to be with their families. Moreover, once you have a green card you can do whatever job you wish, from McDonald's to being a journalist.

Apparently, in the new DU reality, as long as immigrants pick lettuce, they are welcome (regardless of their breaking U.S. law), but if they possess a higher education or a specialized skill, they are 'stealing' jobs (regardless of their compliance with U.S. law). Unbelievable.

[notesdev]

16. It just doesn't make sense

to import more people when we can't employ the people we have. It's a sure-fire recipe for economic and social instability.

[krabigirl]

41. Wow. Sorry, these posts make me sick. So what do you suggest we do>?

Keep the families separate, or send back all of the green card holders? Should their jobs just go to Americans, even though the green card holders are more qualified?

[high density]

72. Doesn't the green card holder have a choice, to come to the USA or not to come?

What green card holders are more qualified than US workers? We hear from Microsoft and Indian IT outsourcing firms all the time that they have to import labor because there are no Americans that hold the skills they demand. I'd buy that excuse in a country like Cambodia but not in the USA. The fact is that no Americans hold the skills who want to work for the minimum wage that these firms want to pay. This doesn't help out anybody except for foreigners, Corporate America, and the shareholders that demand an ever increasing dividend yield.

Yes, US Citizens do come first in the USA. That is not xenophobic, that is just a fact of life. If I went to a foreign country I would be treated in a similar way. Immigration is what this country has been built upon, but we must prevent Corporate America from abusing it to simply lower wages.

[notesdev]

90. A green card is a permanent resident

Those are not easy to get and the people who have them have waited patiently (and lawfully, I might add). Their demonstrated dedication to our country deserves respect.

The import (and like the word or not, that is a precisely and 100% truthful description of the phenomenon) of H1-Bs and illegal aliens alike, however, is purely a business subsidy, and the people who pay the price are American citizens - in lost jobs, in lower wages, in higher taxes, in lower availability of services, and across a wide range of other aspects of life.

To me, if there's one thing that being a Democrat is about more than anything else, it's simple justice. How can you tell an American who is struggling to find work and support his own family that his own country is willing to sell him down the river in favor of a foreign national, that this situation is just? It's not. It's an open betrayal of the American worker and citizen, and it ought to be put on hold in tough times when jobs are scarce. The needs of Americans must come before the needs of foreigners or the very legitimacy of the US government is in question.

The main reason for the importation of foreign labor is to evade labor requirements. An indentured servant cannot protest his work conditions or a wrong done to him as an American can, and that is the motivating force for business to want this labor.

If you support foreign labor, then you support big business and the undermining of US labor protections. You may want to look at the whole of the consequences of that position before committing to it.

[closeupready]

54. You import oil, tchochkes, cars, and TV's. You don't 'import' people.

The fact that you look at this issue that way is disturbing, almost as though you don't consider these people as being people at all.

[smitra]

17. You got it EXACTLY right...

It seems that DU cannot distinguish between people who are here on an H-1B/L-1 visa (which can, and has, been subject to abuse) and green-card holders who are classified by the govt. as PERMANENT residents. In other words, green-card holders have gone thru a much more arduous vetting process - lasting a couple of years or more - before they are given the right to stay. And when given this right, the LAW OF THE LAND, for decades, has recognized that they get benefits that temporary residents don't - such as the right to pay resident tuition at state universities, buy a house, etc. They are certainly not 'guests' in the country who are 'welcome to leave', as a previous post on this thread says.

The problem this bill seeks to address has also been around for at least 2 decades. It is ironic that people on H-1B/L-1 visas can bring their spouses and children over (spouse does not have the right to work) but green-card holders - who can become citizens in 5 years - cannot. I remember in the early 1990s, there was a proposal to let such spouses and children come to the country - so the family would be re-united - with the proviso that such a spouse would not be able to work for 5 years. It never made it to a bill, and the idea went nowhere, and the problem continues.

I have to agree with you about the comment on xenophobia -- and on this, a liberal site too. I wonder what will come next -- naturalized, but first-generation, US citizens also are 'guests' in this country, and are welcome to go back to their countries of origin?

[closeupready]

57. It would be nice if everyone on DU were liberal, but there are many conservatives here, as well.

Especially when it comes to religion and gay issues, there are many here who cling irrationally to their superstitions and homophobia. This is yet a third area like that.

[cosmicone]

19. You said it very eloquently. See my post below. n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

22. It's all about the middle class and everybody going after the little guy

higher education or a specialized skill workers with visas or green cards are taking jobs off the middle class, immigrants picking lettuce are not taking middle class jobs that's the difference. Poor illegal immigrants are exploited not just by corporation but everybody that can make a penny out of them including some legal residents. That's one of the primary reasons that many oppose to give them full labor rights to keep the same status quo of some being above others human beings.

[krabigirl]

44. Green card workers are not taking jobs "off" of anyone.

They are hired for a specific job. So do you suggest that all green card holders return home, and give their jobs to Americans? I don't quite follow you here. That's not a country I'd like to live in.

[AlphaCentauri]

61. Agree with you

I can't quit understand green card holders attacking illegals to diffuse the attacks on them.

[Art_from_Ark]

93. You are confusing green cards with work visas

Works visas are issued for a specific length of time, for a particular job. Green cards are permanent resident cards that give their holders vastly expanded employment opportunities.

[Romulox]

27. It's really dishonest to characterize any disagreement on immigration issues as zenophobia. nt

[No Elephants]

68. Not always. Sometimes it is xenophobia. Pat Buchanan is a prime example. Mr. "I cry every time

I hear The Night They Drove Ole Dixie Down" is always linking immigrants and the loss of American culture (whatever he means by that).

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

[Romulox]

84. "It's really dishonest to characterize *any* disagreement..."

"Any" is an all inclusive category.

I'm of the camp that believes that America has no culture, btw (even though I know that this is obviously not true!) :shrug:

[krabigirl]

38. Thank you. This thread is shocking to me as well.

I have a foreign-born husband, who was a green card holder for a while, and is now a citizen after 15 years. He is a co-owner of a company here which provides a service and plenty of jobs. If I had not been American, would I have been allowed to live here with him?

[OhioChick]

42. Why do immigration lawyers always cry racism?

Seems to be a trend.

[No Elephants]

70. Because it's often true?

[OhioChick]

73. Nah....

Without immigration, they wouldn't have jobs. The race card is typically the last card pulled when they've exhausted their debate.

[No Elephants]

100. Not really following your logic, but that's okay.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dorkulon]

43. Watch for racism to rise as incomes fall.

Not specifically on DU, but everywhere. As whites find themselves losing financial and political clout, they will increasingly feel resentment toward the "usurpers." This is a predictable social phenomenon.

[krabigirl]

46. Scary stuff. Coupled with the rise of talibornagain violence, moving overseas sounds good.

My "foreign" husband may move his business, which employs many Americans, back to France. (I guess that would be great for the local economy, but hey, as long as a foreigner is gone!)

[WriteDown]

52. The irony is that...

most Western European nations have strict immigration policies.

[pampango]

56. Actually, the last I saw in Western European countries a higher percentages of their residents

are "foreign-born" than in the US. Great Britain gets many immigrants from India, Pakistan, and other ex-colonies. France gets them from Algeria and other African countries that were colonies before. Germany seems get more from Turkey.

[WriteDown]

58. You may want to check your stats and review their policies..

The way the Turks are treated and referred to in Germany, makes me wonder why they'd want to be there at all, but its far better than being a Romanian in Germany.

[pampango]

75. The stats I found are that 11.7% of the US population is foreign born,

which is exceeded by Switzerland (22.9%), Austria (15.1%), Ireland (14.1%), Sweden (12.4%), and Germany (12.3%. Some countries had lower percentages of foreign-born residents than the US, France (10.7%), Great Britain (9.1%), Spain (8.5), and Norway (7.4%).

In fairness, it looks like the US percentage of foreign-born residents would be right about in the middle of the range for all of Western Europe. We have less "foreigners" than some and more than others - #6 out of 10 including the countries listed above.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?id=402

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf

[cosmicone]

18. The ignorance expressed here is sometimes amazing.

Even when a green card holder brings his family here, he/she is asked to sign an affidavit stating he/she will fully support those people, will not allow those people to become a public charge and that he/she is willing to post a bond to ensure that said family doesn't become a public charge.

Now as to the economic impact .... when the spouse arrives here, they end up buying a house, buy clothing, furniture and appliances and spend money on restaurants and entertainment. The dollars spent on an extra person go into the economy and support many other jobs.

For people from a country of immigrants and especially the progressives amongst them to make comments such as the ones above is astounding indeed.

Is it because the new immigrants are from non-white, non-european countries? </pondering>

[krabigirl]

34. Seriously.

[No Elephants]

64. Regardless of what is signed, some immigrants do end up on welfare ( I once

worked for the New Yord City Department of Social Services, a nicer name for the welfare department.) Promises to support people are not always kept and, then again, there is no guarantee that the person who makes the promise is going to keep his or her job. That person may end up on welfare, too.

I am enthusiastic about legal immigration, but discussion needs to be factual.

[cosmicone]

94. So just because a few can't keep the promise, we should punish them all? n/t

[high density]

74. Go ahead and come up to Lewiston Maine and see all of the immigrants who are "supporting themselves"

The overall mean average quarterly wage for Somali immigrants was $2,199.35, equating to just under $8,800 per year. The median average quarterly wage is even lower, at just $1,562.58, indicating that the mean overstates the typical average wages. In order to better examine the average wages and employment patterns, a subset of Somali immigrants was identified. These immigrants had at least four quarters of wages, not necessarily consecutive, during their eligibility period. The average wages for this group were slightly higher, with a mean of $2,281.16 and a median of $1,868.93.

http://mainegov-images.informe.org/spo/economics/docs/publications/Lewiston_Migrant_Report.pdf

50% unemployment... Something isn't working.

[primavera]

91. The Somalis in Lewiston are refugees, not immigrants

Refugees are kind of a unique category in that they are not brought here because of their employable skills but because they were in danger of being killed in their countries of origin. They are placed by refugee resettlement agencies around the country based upon wherever the responsible resettlement agency happens to have an office capable of providing at least some minimal level of support (because God knows our government won't help them). Because we Americans don't believe in social welfare programs, even when the beneficiaries are legitimately needy, refugees tend to get tossed into a community to either sink or swim on their own. So there are no publicly funded programs to provide refugees with job training, placement assistance, language instruction, psychological counseling, cultural orientation, and so on, as there are in countries like Germany, France, the UK, and, well, pretty much every other refugee receiving country on earth except us. So the Somalis you're looking at are coming from a traumatic background, are being thrown into a place radically different from anyplace they've ever been with no say in where they go or what they do, and are given essentially zero assistance in making that transition. That's a very different situation from that of the economic immigrant, who comes to the US voluntarily, with a certain set of employable skills in hand, looking for work, typically in parts of the country which they specifically select based upon the availability of jobs there.

[cosmicone]

96. Except that Jewish refugees from behind the iron curtain were

brought here on a red carpet.

One of my Russian patients walked into the US consulate in Zagreb and defected. He was immediately given $5,000 for expenses and a first class ticket to California. Upon arrival, he was given a $3,500 a month "stipend" for 5 years plus free English and college education. He lived far better than I did as a physician in a residency program!

[primavera]

98. That was the Lautenberg Amendment

It was a Cold War program designed to provide an incentive to defectors from the evil communists and score PR points by demonstrating the magnanimity of the beneficent West. We never applied that same generosity to other nationalities and, as soon as the Cold War ended, we stopped extending it to Russians and East Europeans as well.

[Gormy Cuss]

105. And the problem in Lewiston is that too many found it more hospitable than other relocation cities.

The target size of the Somali resettlement was exceeded when people relocated from other areas like Atlanta and created a very large Somali population for a small and depressed economic market area, making it even more difficult for the large Somali population to move to self-sufficiency.

[cosmicone]

95. Somali immigrants are neither typical nor numerous

Many of them are here on asylum visas unlike a majority of green card holders who are here after certification by the US Department of Labor and their employers that the skills they possess are in short supply in the United States. (Such as nurses)

Furthermore, most immigrants have a lower standard of living than Americans. I would venture a guess that the Somalis live well on that income -- their needs are less. They generally don't need iPods and HDTV or eat out in restaurants or have Roche Bobois furniture or Cartier watches.

[Honeycombe8]

101. Economic concerns are valid. After all, we DO have a few unemployed people

in the country whose spouses and children are already here and receiving government assistance. Imagine the help to our economy if THAT'S who Honda hired. Not only would unemployment rates go down, but our budget would improve from the savings from the government assistance no longer necessary.

Green card holders are here temporarily, aren't they? Well, supposedly. But we all know the game plan is to stay for most of them. That's why the moving of the family here is important to them (besides wanting their families with them).

I live in an area that is getting more and more overrun with immigrants. Those who don't live in an area with large immigration (esp. illegal) can't grasp how it is.

This situation exists, regardless of whether the immigrants are red, yellow, black, or white. Yes, we are all "precious in His sight," but some of us are already here, badly in need of work.

[smitra]

103. Green card holders are NOT here temporarily...

They are PERMANENT residents, here because they have gone through a vetting process by the US Government and have satisfied all the demands imposed by current immigration laws. Part of this vetting process includes certifying that they will not be on public assistance.

The keywords associated with green card holders are LEGAL and PERMANENT - something that seems to be missed by many posters on this thread, who are confusing the green card holders with holders of temporary work visas and illegals. The attempts by several of the posts to correct this ignorance don't seem to catch anyone's attention.

No doubt economic concerns are valid. But the problem this bill seeks to address is at least 2 decades old, and was an issue even in the go-go 90s under Bill Clinton. It seeks to address the irony that a temporary work visa holder can bring his/her spouse and children over (with no right to work) but a permanent resident cannot do so EVEN IF he/she swears that the spouse will not work here until he/she becomes eligible for permanent residency (and hence, the right to work) in their own right.

[Honeycombe8]

106. So what was with the movie "Green Card," and other numerous references

through the years about green card holders having to marry a U.S. citizen so they don't have to leave?

[smitra]

108. I have not seen the movie, but Hollywood can hardly be considered to be the definitive word ...

And as for the movie 'Green Card', here is the synopsis of the plot from us.imdb.com:

"George Faure is a Frenchman who has been offered a job in the U.S. But in order to get the job he must obtain a work permit - green card, and the easiest way is to marry an American..."

Is it not obvious that in order to GET a green card, this person wants to marry an American, and thus be on the right side of the law? Once he gets the green card, he does not have to leave, and can take the job he wants.

Careful attention to detail is necessary in order for any argument/point of view to be credible.

[krabigirl]

36. I see nothing wrong with this. Is it good policy to keep families separated?

The family members cannot work -- they must be supported by the green card holder.

[JustinL]

99. Good for him. I hope it passes.

[w4rma]

102. Hah. I do not support this. I will never support this until worker issues are fixed. (nt)