Tweet
My friend Tamar Jacoby has an excellent editorial in today's Los Angeles Times providing an overview of the current political landscape for comprehensive immigration reform:
The problem: Left and right not only frame their arguments differently,
they also disagree on matters of substance. Most significantly, unions
question whether the country needs reform that creates more visas for
immigrant workers to enter the country in the future, while employers
who hire foreigners say they can't sustain their businesses without
them.
The question for the months ahead: Will these differences
undo the reform movement, or will left and right find ways to
compromise, broadening their base and expanding their power?
Here's
the other big question: How strong are the anti-immigrant activists who
dominated the debate last time -- talk radio and CNN's Lou Dobbs and
their inflamed, angry followers. In fact, as poll after poll showed,
these naysayers represented a relatively small segment of Americans --
no more than 20% to 25%. But they were loud and well-organized, and
they managed to generate doubts about reform among a much larger group
of uncertain, ambivalent voters.
Dobbs and former Colorado
congressman Tom Tancredo are already ratcheting up their anti-immigrant
rhetoric, and the recession may help them. But it's also possible that
things will play out differently, that some of the far-right's anger is
spent, and that the doubts won't catch on as they did last time among
the broader public. Voters are anxious and self-absorbed, but as
Obama's election and continued popularity show, voters want things
fixed. They want Washington to act boldly, to tackle hard problems, to
make the compromises necessary to pass fundamental reforms. And
immigration may well benefit from the new can-do, reformist mood.
Will
it be immigration deja vu in 2009? It could be -- the same old stale
debate or an equally uncompromising one. But enough has already changed
that it could be different this time around. Who knows, this time, we
as a nation might even get to "yes."
they also disagree on matters of substance. Most significantly, unions
question whether the country needs reform that creates more visas for
immigrant workers to enter the country in the future, while employers
who hire foreigners say they can't sustain their businesses without
them.
The question for the months ahead: Will these differences
undo the reform movement, or will left and right find ways to
compromise, broadening their base and expanding their power?
Here's
the other big question: How strong are the anti-immigrant activists who
dominated the debate last time -- talk radio and CNN's Lou Dobbs and
their inflamed, angry followers. In fact, as poll after poll showed,
these naysayers represented a relatively small segment of Americans --
no more than 20% to 25%. But they were loud and well-organized, and
they managed to generate doubts about reform among a much larger group
of uncertain, ambivalent voters.
Dobbs and former Colorado
congressman Tom Tancredo are already ratcheting up their anti-immigrant
rhetoric, and the recession may help them. But it's also possible that
things will play out differently, that some of the far-right's anger is
spent, and that the doubts won't catch on as they did last time among
the broader public. Voters are anxious and self-absorbed, but as
Obama's election and continued popularity show, voters want things
fixed. They want Washington to act boldly, to tackle hard problems, to
make the compromises necessary to pass fundamental reforms. And
immigration may well benefit from the new can-do, reformist mood.
Will
it be immigration deja vu in 2009? It could be -- the same old stale
debate or an equally uncompromising one. But enough has already changed
that it could be different this time around. Who knows, this time, we
as a nation might even get to "yes."
You have been accused of being "desi"!
Welcome to the crowd! Hope your (former?) country men don't mind the promotion :-))))
Rachel:
If what you now say is true, your comment on H1Bs previously simply does not reflect it. You essentially told Greg that filing H1Bs was indefensible and would lead to violence. How does that square with rooting out fraud, and sympathy for the "legitimate H1bs"? Or do you think Greg only files the wrong kind?
Somehow I'm not buying your new found love. After 13 years in the US and with a Green Card nowhere in sight, an overdose of public funded education, plenty of skills and a plum job in a cutting edge field that serves this country very well, I am wondering why I should stay where I'm not wanted. Might as well leave (with my money in hand and an abandoned mortgage for the pure "natives" to deal with) ahead of the pogroms huh?
I checked both the Canadian and UK Skilled/Tier 1 categories. In 4-6 weeks I could have permanent status in either country. Not to mention the 6% growth and plentiful jobs in India. Food for thought I guess, given that if your kind doesn't get me the CIR crowd might.
Another factor to your consideration is whether super-restictive immigration policy in the US is going to severely hinder economic growth over the long term. That's important when deciding where you want your kids to grow up (not that I expect them to stay for the rest of their lives where they grow up, but still). If the laws don't change over the next 10 years, I am thinking net migration to the US will drop off for other reasons. And it's one tough proposition to live in the country where nobody wants to come...