Democrats clash on immigration policy
Tensions in party rise to the surface
BG-LATIMES-WASHINGTON — As the Democratic Party prepares to take power on Capitol Hill in January, tensions are surfacing over the details of plans to overhaul the nation’s immigration policies.
Statements by incoming members such as Claire McCaskill, the Democratic senator-elect from Missouri, could provide an early warning of the difficulties ahead.
In a September television spot, McCaskill sat at a kitchen table and looked directly into the camera. “Let me tell you what I believe in,” she said. “No amnesty for illegal immigrants.”
Democratic leaders presented a largely united front on immigration this year, providing crucial support for a measure that would have allowed illegal immigrants to gain citizenship — a bill critics attacked as “amnesty.”Now, the citizenship provision is just one of several aspects of the complex debate that are being questioned by some members.
While party leaders insist that rewriting immigration law remains a priority, they acknowledge that building consensus on how to do that will be tricky. They must deal with competing camps within the party and address concerns raised by core constituencies — hurdles that could block passage of a final bill.
McCaskill and a slew of incoming House Democrats took stances that, in the shorthand of campaign rhetoric, seemed more conservative on immigration issues than the positions staked out by the party’s congressional stalwarts.
One House Democratic strategist estimates that about half of the almost 30 seats that Democrats took from Republicans went to candidates who took conservative positions on immigration reform
Do the Democrats have their own problems on immigration policy? How will this effect the 08 elections?
Gotta love this stuff. No one has even taken their seat in washington yet and they are making predictions when nobody has sat down and talked to anybody else yet.
I didn’t see immigration reform at the top of the Democratic agenda…I don’t see why they can’t punt this issue down the street a bit while addressing more pressing issues like:
1. Raising the minimum wage
2. Investigating fraud and government waste in Iraq, Afghanistan and Katrina
3. Enforcing EPA guidelines
4. Passing legislation that prevents corporations from defaulting on pensions
5. Enabling Medicare to negotiate prices for prescription drugs
Those are just five, but the list is long.
Immigration isn’t as pressing as any of these items, so I’m not anticipating a battle royall right out of the gate…in spite of what Lou Dobbs has to say on a given night (hint: until his ratings dip, it’ll be the same thing he said the night before)
Caroline
The reason people are writing about the split in both parties on trade and immigration is for multiple reasons;
You have Congressman dived by populist verse trade at all cost policy with open borders. The divide is no longer along just party lines.
You have real wages going down and healthcare, daycare, school… all rising faster than wages.
And many in Congress on both sides are trying to figure out how to keep the campaign donors happy without losing their job.
Traditional arguments about tax policy and minimum wage will not fix a race to the bottom of pitting Americans workers against slave labor. That is why you are seeing strange alliance from both sides on this issue. You could of switch names on the liberal Sirota and conservative Schlafly articles on trade and you would not know the difference.
Al
Nothing you are talking about will help wages of working class Americans.
Democrats Rip Robert Rubin Regarding Trade
An earlier post revealed that Clinton’s chief economist, free-trader Robert Rubin, was scheduled to educate incoming Congressional Democrats. It didn’t go well:
The Nation: Rep. Joe Donnelly told about the Delphi employees in his district whose wages have been broken from $21 to $9 an hour, their pension obligations dumped on the government and jobs shipped offshore– thanks to Rubin’s “free trade” system. “What do you say to that?” Donnelly asked.
Freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas reportedly tore into NAFTA, the trade agreement Rubin shepherded through Congress for the Clinton administration. Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur recalled the US trade deficit was $70 billion when Rubinomics was launched in 1993 and $370 billion at the end of the Clinton presidency (it is now $700 billion and rising).
Rubin’s response: it’s “complicated.” One House member reportedly growled that trade may be complicated, but losing your job is not complicated.
John,
I think it’s just wishful thinking on your part. Is it proven that immigration is a winning issue? Did people like Tester and Webb win because of their immigration stance or because of their opposition to the war. If you believe the exit polls, immigration didn’t even make the top four.
It is not about running on one issue. The immigration issue would make it hard for guys like Shuler to win.
Read from the LA TIMES
Some unions strongly object to Democratic support for guest worker programs that would not allow participants to gain citizenship. Party leaders worry that backing a bill that included a path to citizenship would alienate some blacks, who have traditionally competed with Hispanic immigrants for jobs. And the Democrats will have to contend with a newly energized left wing, which could push to do more for legal and illegal immigrants.
“Just because we have the majority doesn’t mean we have enough votes for an immigration reform bill,” said Representative Loretta Sanchez, Democrat of California.
One House Democratic strategist estimates that about half of the almost 30 seats that Democrats took from Republicans went to candidates who took conservative positions on immigration reform.
These newcomers include Representative-elect Heath Shuler of North Carolina, who “is against amnesty,” said spokesman Andrew Whalen. “If there’s friction with the party [on the issue], there’s nothing we can do about it; his views really do reflect his district.”
Persuading Shuler and similar Democrats to back the type of immigration bill the Senate passed this year will be difficult, particularly in cases where the lawmakers won by small margins and can expect tough 2008 reelection bids.
If it’s not about running on one issue then why are you constantly putting forth litmus tests?
Read for yourself if you are wrong on certain issues you will not win in Red areas. You can call it what you want.
The same is true in Blue districts.
John,
I’ve already agreed with you that you have to pander to the fundamentalists in the south.
I can’t believe how testy you guys get when people analyse the Democrats. What else are we supposed to do, watch Oprah?
Bill,
I don’t have a problem as long as it is based on facts.