Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Senate Democrats' immigration proposal

Politico has a copy. I haven't read it yet, but have been advised to think of it as a starting point for discussion rather than a firm outline of coming legislation. I'll say more when I know more.

By Ezra Klein  |  April 29, 2010; 12:47 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sen. Lindsey Graham: 'I care equally about immigration and climate change'
Next: Chat transcript

Comments

On the whole, I like it. It's more conservative that McCain's immigration reform. It focuses on controlling the border, which is critical. I still think they should include a Super Fence, but if that's the only thing that's missing, I still think this bill is worth passing.

Not sure how the Republicans are going to battle this. There's a lot of strong, border-centric language in there. Checking the ports.

Requires English language skills. Good. All they need to do is make English the official language of America, and they couldn't be much more conservative. :)

All the complaints will probably be about page 26.

"It will also create a Commission on Wartime Treatment of European Americas to review the United States Government's wartime treatment of European Americans and European Latin Americans during World War II, and a Commission on Wartime Treatment of Jewish Refugees to review the United States Government's refusal to allow Jewish and other refugees fleeing persecution or genocide in Europe entry to the United States during World War II."

Hard-liners will object that it's stealth gateway legislation towards reparations. Also, a bone to LARASA and the anti-American crowd generally.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | April 29, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Any so-called "enforcement" measure that creates millions of more Hispanic voters will ultimately not be enforced. We already have a hard enough time as it is enforcing our borders and immigration policies due to our "representatives'" fear of the Hispanic vote.

That is why I am opposed to amnesty of any kind. We know we will not get border enforcement because the pro-illegal-alien pressure groups like LaRaza are 100 percent against ANY enforcement measure instituted by ANY government entity, whether federal, state or local.

The problem is that many Hispanics/Latino care more about being Hispanic/Latino, than they care about being American -- and will vote accordingly.

NO to empty enforcement promises.

Posted by: MaryJessel | April 29, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

MaryJessel: There isn't any amnesty of any kind in the draft. This isn't the McCain bill.

Posted by: cmharrison1983 | April 29, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

MarryJessel:

There is a laborious path to citizenship, but it happens post enforcement enhancements. How are the enforcement promises empty?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | April 29, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm so incredibly happy to see that the proposal supports the inclusion of a provision that would allow gays and lesbians to sponsor their permanent partners, just as a straight person can sponsor his or her spouse. I was worried that I would have to leave the country to stay with my foreign-born partner, but now it looks like that nightmare won't be happening.

Posted by: blah1 | April 29, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I clicked the link but didn't read the whole thing. The first page was all about controlling the border first. I don't know what more people like MaryJessel want from legislators in this country. What a troll.

Posted by: luko | April 29, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

MarryJessel:

There is a laborious path to citizenship, but it happens post enforcement enhancements. How are the enforcement promises empty?
--
Because the greatly strengthened Hispanic voting bloc (20 to 30 million new voters, plus the millions more relatives they will be able to bring in under "family reunification") will vote to repeal any enforcement measures right after they get amnesty and the right to vote. Bye-bye enforcement of any kind.

I have spent many hours reading "pro-immigrant" Hispanic blogs and debating with many of them online. The majority don't want ANY immigration enforcement whatsoever. Some are coy about and say they are for "reasonable" enforcement but they are opposed to every single enforcement measure that would work.

They want open borders and ultra-easy access to citizenship privileges for all of their friends and relatives "back home". They also want Spanish to be made co-equal with English so that they can more easily get government jobs -- which, in their culture "back home" are main only types of jobs that are secure and reliable.

Posted by: MaryJessel | April 29, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

The first page was all about controlling the border first. I don't know what more people like MaryJessel want from legislators in this country. What a troll.
--
I don't think it's "trollish" to expect our government to fulfill its primary responsibility which is to protect our national security.

It's also not reasonable for them to hold out a promise to protect our national sovereignty as a "carrot" to offer us in exchange for amnesty (as they did with the failed "one-time only" immigration legislation passed in 1986.)

Posted by: MaryJessel | April 29, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"I don't think it's "trollish" to expect our government to fulfill its primary responsibility which is to protect our national security."

Ahh, yet another legacy of the Bush administration. The government's primary responsibility is to uphold and protect the United States Constitution. It's an important distinction with serious implications.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | April 29, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Ahh, yet another legacy of the Bush administration. The government's primary responsibility is to uphold and protect the United States Constitution. It's an important distinction with serious implications.
--
LOL, the Constitution is useless without a jursidiction for enforcing it. No national sovereignty, no Constitution, nor any other laws BTW. That is why government's primary role is protecting national sovereignty. A people with no state cannot make its own laws. I'm continually amazed at how many people do not understand this.

For the record, I believe that Bush failed at enforcing our naional sovereignty as well. I'm not partisan about it, though you clearly are.

Posted by: MaryJessel | April 29, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Advised by whom, Ezra?

Posted by: kyledeb | April 30, 2010 12:16 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company