Republicans don't really want immigration reform.
By louisehartmann
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first of many hearings on comprehensive immigration reform. In the seven and a half hour hearing, senators debated 32 of the three hundred proposed amendments to the bill, and adopted 21 of the changes. The proposals ranged from plans to correct technical immigration issues, to Sen. Ted Cruz's amendment to triple the number of border control agents, to Sen. Jeff Sessions' proposal to construct a 700 mile, double-layered fence along our Southern border.
Thankfully, most of the extreme amendments were voted down, but there's still cause for concern over the proposals they accepted. One of the most contentious changes was Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's mandate, that the Department of Homeland Security submit a plan to stop 90 percent of illegal border crossings in high-risk areas, before undocumented individuals already living here can even apply for so-called “provisional immigrant” status. This provision is only slightly better than Grassley's rejected, poison-pill amendment, which set unattainable benchmarks that DHS had to meet before any pathway to citizenship would be considered.
After losing the Hispanic vote in the 2012 election, Republicans have attempted to paint themselves as pro-immigration, but it's all an act. The racist and unrealistic GOP amendments in this legislation show they have no real desire to fix our nation's immigration system. As the Senate Judiciary Committee debates the hundreds of remaining amendments over the coming months, we must prevent these poison-pill provisions from making immigration reform meaningless. Call your Senators and tell them to fight these poison-pill amendments, and support provisions that actually fix our broken immigration system.
Comments
#2
Loren Bliss ~ I have read your Friday post about the traumatic encounter with the woman in the park. I sincerely hope you are feeling better. However, I must say, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but times have seriously changed since you were a commercial photographer. You should bare in mind in the future that in our modern society children are particular targets for all manner of predator. Personally, I think the woman you encountered displayed unreasonable aggression toward you. On the other hand, the instinctual response to protect ones child will bring that type of aggression out.
Loren, what I would suggest you try in the future is to approach the adults in the playground before you even unload your camera equipment. Offer them your card, introduce yourself, and explain to them what you are doing and what project you are working on. You might even want to bring a sample portfolio of your past work to help explain to them what you do. Only after receiving their blessing, go ahead and set up your camera equipment.
I too am an amateur photographer myself. I have encountered many such episodes of defensive opposition to people being photographed in public. No one likes that nowadays. They feel it is a violation of their right to privacy. I believe they are right. Just because they are in a public venue doesn't mean they are surrendering their right to privacy. Imagine how people really feel about public surveillance cameras on every street.
Remember, parents by nature always fear the worst case scenario when it comes to their kids. Child pornography, pedophilia, and child abduction are always going to be the first thing a parent suspects when a stranger takes unsolicited photos of their children at play. Even if the event is as innocent as it was with you.
My friend! In today's world, parents have enough to worry about. Please exercise a little discretion and realize the fears of parents. I'm sure that if informed about your intentions prior to the shooting, they would have happily cooperated. Don't give up the good fight, my friend. Whatever you do, don't give up your faith in your fellow man. Most of all, don't allow yourself to get that upset again. We need you in the good fight! DAM
#3
NAFTA destroyed the Mexican economy. It caused millions of peasant farmers to lose their land and move north looking for jobs. The Mexican factory workers, meanwhile, got organized, won better pay and working conditions; the Mexican public mobilized, won some environmental protections. The American multinationals then moved their factories out of Mexico and into China thinking the police state there would prevent the same from happening (funny how the ideal society of the "freedom loving" Republicans is the police state of China).
Big business is often against enforcement of immigration law. They always wanted the undocumented as scabs and it divides the workers of the U.S.. The plight of the undocumented is a human rights issue, a refugee problem. Labor has to get global as business does. Thinking within national borders isolationistically is obsolete and the current immigration policy is also obsolete and serves to divide the workers of the U.S., documented vs. undocumented.
Big business commonly doesn't want enforcement of immigration law disrupting their functioning (some do and call ICE every payday and so avoid paying their people) but also don't want immigration reform because if the undocumented became legalized they could organize more freely, without fear, and wouldn't have to accept abuse like that of those other businesses which is common for the undocumented and couldn't be used as scabs like they are and couldn't divide the workforce like they are. It would take away the attraction and the preference of hiring the undocumented over the documented or U.S. born and give the undocumented their basic rights.
Essentially our free trade agreements give freedom of mobility for business but not for labor unlike, for example, the European Union where both capital and labor can travel freely through the free trade zone.
#4
On Friday, a caller said that "we should reduce the work-week to 6-hour days" to ensure full employment.
One thing that you, Thom, might not realize is that very rarely in this country among professional employed is even an 8-hour day recognized. I graduated from college in 1988 and since then every employer has required 60 - 80 hour weeks, for which I am payed 40 hours. Then to add insult to injury, now all the professional jobs in our area are being filled with H1B visa peopl from other countries around the world.
Would that we could require employers to PAY OVERTIME for the 60 and 80 hour work-weeks, then it would become cheaper to employee more people and have full employment, all which actually is better for our country and economy.
#5
SukiRainbowPup -- Trust me, Thom realizes it.
#6
Well said.Kend. And when there are millions of illegal aliens living in this country why are we talking about "Immigration Reform"? Why are we not calling this an amnesty?
Oh I see Frank Luntz's finger prints all over this issue.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
Mueller's favorite place to pray (written about in "Prophet's Way"), and the roof of the room where the Last Supper is reputed to have happened.
Thom & Louise at a "private audience" with His Holiness Pope John Paul II at his summer palace, Castle Gandolfo, Italy
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Right through the worst of the Bush years and into the present, Thom Hartmann has been one of the very few voices constantly willing to tell the truth. Rank him up there with Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers, and Paul Krugman for having the sheer persistent courage of his convictions."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom is a national treasure. Read him, embrace him, learn from him, and follow him as we all work for social change."
From Screwed:
"Thom Hartmann’s book explains in simple language and with concrete research the details of the Neo-con’s war against the American middle class. It proves what many have intuited and serves to remind us that without a healthy, employed, and vital middle class, America is no more than the richest Third World country on the planet."
Palindromedary ~ Of course you are right about that. But what you say that makes the most sense is:
Like I said before on this blog, once a criminal gets away with a crime they always come back to outdo themselves. That is why I automatically decided to vote for Obama when he stated he would investigate the Bush Administration for war crimes. Regardless as to whether or not 911 was an inside job or not, there is ample evidence to show that the Bush Administration lied this country into an illegal war. Their intentional avoidance of the warnings allowed 911 to happen. This is fact. The previous Administration is guilty of Treason on many counts. So was the Clinton Administration, the Reagan Administration, and the Nixon Administration. For that matter so was the Johnson Administration in the Gulf of Tonkin and so was the Roosevelt Administration in Pearl Harbor. One thing leads to another and if unchecked you end up with a 911 and two unnecessary, illegal wars. We the People who swallow the B.S. and lie to ourselves have no one else to blame when the crimes get bigger and badder. No, we have nothing good to look forward to in this country. Only more of the same. Do something about it; or, learn to profit from it. Otherwise, just get used to it. That's my two cents.