Bigotry and Inanity Disguised as Reform

Senators in Bipartisan Deal on Broad Immigration Bill - New York Times

This newest proposal from a team of senators trying to work everything out fails on every level for the Democrats.

Why are they working with GOP leaders to create a solution to a problem (if you want to call immigration a problem) that is the pet of President Bush, his goal at a legacy? I realize that there are going to be problems from the GOP as well as the Democrats, but if Bush gets anything passed, it will be a coup for him and his political capital will skyrocket. American associate immigration with Bush policy initiatives. The only potential upside is throwing immigration into the GOP primary pot and seeing what gets stirred up.

The political impracticalities are large. Read the NYT article up top for how immigration groups are freaking out. Plenty of immigrants become naturalized every year and typically will vote Democratic. While the bill could create more Democratic voters in the long term, it will only anger traditionally Democratic voters and may make Hispanic communities think twice about voting at all. If anything, it will send them to Republicans, who are getting more and more Catholic voters and will be seen as more open to Hispanics while Democrats weren't willing to work for them.

Also look at American voters, this survey taken from a USA Today/Gallup Poll from last month:
PollingReport.com

"Now thinking about immigrants who come to the United States illegally -- Which comes closest to your view about what the government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S. and not allow them to return. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return temporarily to work. Require illegal immigrants to leave the U.S., but allow them to return and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time. OR, Allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time." Options rotated
						.
		Leave, Not Return	Leave, Temporarily Return	Leave, Return and Become Citizens	Remain and Become Citizens	Unsure
		%	%	%	%	%
	4/13-15/07	14	6	42	36	2
						.
"Do you think the U.S. has made progress or lost ground in dealing with illegal immigration in the past year, or has there been no change?"
						.
		Made Progress	Lost Ground	No Change	Unsure
		%	%	%	%
	4/13-15/07	12	43	42	3

So basically, Americans want immigrants, even those who entered illegally, to be allowed to become citizens. Bush's guest worker program has no political will. Nor does a massive crackdown. Democrats can get more from this package, if only they would put the word out. Republicans have managed to tell everyone what the country is thinking and thus Democrats, never answering the problem, have let them control the agenda.

Now let's look at this bill itself: (all quotes from the above linked NYT article)

Under the merit-based system envisioned in the bill, the government would adopt a point system to evaluate the qualifications of many people seeking permission to immigrate. Points would be awarded for job skills, education and English language proficiency.

I actually think the first criteria here, "job skills," makes sense, although I can see how it could hurt those entering the country to create a better life. Education makes some sense as a criteria too.
The English language proficiency, however, strikes me as another attempt to make English the national language. I don't speak anything but English. I took Spanish classes (I almost failed Spanish classes.) but from living in Florida I can get to a toilet and order a basic dinner (pollo y arroz). English as a national language is still racist. Giving people points for something that can be fairly easily learned through immersion (which would happen from moving here) is simply a way of attacking those who are not fluent in English as "unAmerican," whatever that means in this context. Why Democrats agreed to do something like that I cannot understand.

Moreover, they said, family ties would be an advantage in the proposed point system. If two applicants had the same skills and the same educational credentials, but one also had relatives in the United States, that person would receive the visa.

I am taking the NYT's word for this to some extent, but if you listen to last night's NPR story on the new bill, there is a lot of waffling on what "family ties" means. This projects the American nuclear family onto other cultures, where kinship ties are often stronger and much more complex.
Speaking of kinship...

[Illegal immigrants] could work in the United States under probationary status and could receive renewable four-year “Z visas.” Heads of households would have to return to their home countries to apply for green cards if they wanted to become lawful permanent residents and then citizens.

In addition to the inevitable failure of the Z-visas, which will become a de facto guest worker system, I want to know how the heads of households will be defined. Something about it just screams "men will be in charge" and that is disturbing both for immigrants from traditionally patriarchal societies, who may feel abandoned, and for any women trying to get work in the U.S.

More later, as the debate comes through. Also, some tomorrow on a text for a political science class I am taking. It will a special grammar, vocabulary and the idiocy of publishers episode!

Fun note: This bill is all about rights for gay immigrants and I love it, even though it will never get out of committee.