So It Goes

Ted Baxter Watch: How Does It Feel to be on Your Own?

SINCE HE LEFT HIS JOB as CNN anchor a few weeks ago, Lou Dobbs has cast around for something to do with all his new-found free time. He has hinted at running for President of the United States or for U.S. Senate from New Jersey in 2012, against incumbent Robert Menendez. Then, according to a New York Times blog, there were rumors the other day that he has been in talks with CNBC "to conceivably host a prime time program for CNBC. He could also become a commentator for the business news network."

To do any of those, he will likely need to change his image as a fire-breathing anti-immigration zealot, and he has appeared to retreat from some of those positions in recent public statements.

For example, on the Spanish-language Telemundo network last week, he said he was there "to engage in a meaningful and constructive dialogue and work with those who will work toward a real solution, and not simply a continued dialogue. I think we've had an ongoing dialogue in this country for a number of years, two failed efforts at comprehensive reform. I think we need to honestly come together, those who have different views on the issues of illegal immigration and border security and make some real progress toward an understanding and a compromise that will be helpful to those who are in this country illegally."

Asked whether he thinks its fair that many in the Latino community see him as an adversary because of his oft-stated views on immigration and characterization of illegal immigration as the source of many problems in the U.S., Dobbs said no. "[I]t has been the efforts of the far-left to characterize me in their propaganda as such. But my record is clear. I've written three books, best-selling books, that lays [sic] out my views on illegal immigration clearly. I've spoken about illegal immigration for six years. I have said from the outset that I wanted a rational, effective, humane, immigration policy in this country. And I have also said that we have to have control of our borders particularly between the United States and Mexico if we are to be able to control immigration. Without being able to control immigration, there is nothing that can be done."

For many in the pro-immigration community, it will take a lot more for Dobbs to rehabilitate his reputation. There is enough ambiguity in these words to enable him to advocate exactly what he has in the past, and there is so much for him to retreat from. But in the anti-immigrant community, they read his remarks much more clearly, and they sense betrayal, which means Dobbs is a bit betwixt and between right now.

On the Web site DraftLouDobbsforPresident.com, its proprietor, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, said it "is withdrawing support for Lou Dobbs after years, including the suspension of websites calling on Dobbs to run for President due to the perceived change in Mr. Dobbs's stances on immigration issues.

"While Mr. Dobbs claims his positions have not changed, however, that is not the perception of many of our mutual supporters,' said William Gheen of ALIPAC. 'His recent comments on Telemundo and his national radio show supporting some kind of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is inconsistent with positions of ALIPAC and the views of most American citizens.'...

"...Dobbs created shock waves last week when news broke about his pro-Amnesty comments on Telemundo that appear to be a departure from his prior support for existing immigration laws. ALIPAC circulated the video of the entire Lou Dobbs interview on Telemundo to over 30,000 national supporters."

Does this mean we'll see DraftTomTancredoforPresident.com sometime soon?

Jeff

Ted Baxter Watch: Lou Dobbs' Run for the White House

LIKE THE LOVABLE, vain and self-important jester Ted Baxter, anchor of fictional WJM-TV News on the "Mary Tyler Moore Show," former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs has for years used curious logic to entertain and excite countless Americans. Now that Dobbs has left his nightly newscast on CNN, where he chased big ratings by regularly bashing immigrants and misleadingly fanning fears of America's involvement in global trade, it would be a shame to lose track of such an important figure in American public life. Something tells me that he won't let us forget him.

So, with this post, I'm going to attempt an occasional series called "Ted Baxter Watch," which will report on what Dobbs is up to and how he's distorting reality and our national public policy dialogue.

Which brings me to the big news of this week: Dobbs says he may consider a run for The White House. He didn't waste too much time, did he? But he's on an urgent mission.

"Well, I’ll tell you this much," he said in an interivew on WTOP, a Washington news/talk radio station, "[running for President is] one of the discussions that we’re having. For the first time, I’m actually listening to some people about politics. I don’t think I’ve got the nature for it. [But] we’ve got to do something in this country, and I think that being in the public arena means you’ve got to be part of the solution."

Who can blame a guy for wanting to be part of the solution, even after he spent years being part of the problem?

No one should be surprised by this, by the way. A couple of years ago, Dobbs waved off suggestions that he might run for President (who was making those suggestions? his publicist? the man in the mirror?). But he later told the Wall Street Journal, "I cannot say never."

In the WTOP interview, Dobbs took on a seemingly statesmanlike tone, offering to reach "out to Latino groups, the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, all of the groups with whom I have been in an ongoing debate to try to… bridge some of these conflicts and try to create solutions." Never mind that he will have to undergo a radical personality transplant before such groups, and other fair-minded Americans, will trust him enough to work with him. (He's trying, though. Last week on Telemundo he said he is one of the Latino community's "greatest friends.")

Or as, Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune put it in his blog post today, titled, "Lou Dobbs for president? Ha. Ha. Ha.", "You get famous on cable TV by taking hard-edged positions, creating controversy and fueling anger among both your friends and your enemies. That's not how you get elected to high office, which is why our presidents so rarely satisfy the more extreme factions of their parties."

There have been crazier and more quixotic runs for higher office in American history, and we're seeing another one develop right now in the person of Sarah Palin. But, Dobbs, no doubt, is serious and may have even convinced himself that he's a viable candidate. After his WTOP interviewer laughed at the suggestion that Dobbs would run for President, the former CNN anchor said, "What's so crazy about that? Golly!"

Golly.

Jeff

Do Nothing, Get Nothing

EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NEVER (knowingly) pulled a lever in a voting booth for a Republican candidate, I don't want anyone to think I mean to be partisan when I ask: what the hell does the GOP think it's doing?

I refer to the Republicans' conscious strategy right now to do nothing, in hopes that it will make Democrats look bad and make people like Republicans more -- or some such tortured logic.

Its 'don't-just-do-something, sit-there' approach has been especially apparent for all the months since Congress and the White House have been grappling with health care policy legislation. The sight we've seen of that process has mostly been of Democrats agonizing among themselves, save for one or two moderate Republicans, exceptions who prove the rule.

The strategy, if there is one, seems to be to let the Democrats get their hands dirty and keep Republicans from getting tagged with what will inevitably be a messy process -- and I mean the process leading up to passage of the bill and the implementation after it becomes law (remember all the tumult and confusion around the implementation of the Medicare prescription drug law? This is sure to be as chaotic, but such is profound change.) I have to believe (and, if I took the time, I could probably find polling research to back this up) that Democrats will get credit for trying to do something about what everyone agrees is a broken system, even if the outcome isn't perfect.

Maybe the Congressional Republicans' polling data is beginning to show that they've alienated a lot of potential supporters by coming across as a do-nothing party, because they've finally gotten around to submitting a Republican version of health care reform.

But will this fool anyone? A sneak peek of the Republican bill says it contains a greatest hits of GOP health care provisions (some of which have passed the House but not the Senate in past years) and look like more of a motley patchwork of ideas that may not address the real problems. And won't some people wonder: 1) what took them so long, 2) whether they missed a boat that has long sailed, and 3) if this is any more than a stunt?

Consider also the performance -- or non-performance, really -- of Republicans when the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee met yesterday to mark up that chamber's version of so-called cap-and-trade climate legislation. Except for a brief appearance by Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, Republicans boycotted the proceedings. And all that Voinovich offered was an appeal to subject the provisions of the bill to another EPA analysis that will shed no new light and only delay the deliberations further. Rather than raise their voices rationally against what they clearly see as a flawed bill, they'd rather not show up and try to stall. It's just silly and insulting to the country.

I'll give another example, though, to be fair, this goes back to the previous Congress. I'm talking about the 2007 immigration reform bill, which was done in by Republicans, too. At least in that case, Republicans showed up, though some actually kept a low profile, hoping that by ducking the rage from fervent anti-reformers, it would hit Democrats (and a few courageous Republicans) in the face.

In all three cases, these are issues that every sentient being in the U.S. agrees needs attention. Everyone agrees that our health care system is unsustainable and needs fixing. Most everyone agrees that there is such a thing as climate change and that its effects are already bearing down on us. And everyone, from right to left, agrees that our immigration system doesn't work for anyone and requires an overhaul. Not only is there widespread agreement about all these problems, but that consensus has been with us for a long time. 

It's funny that Congress (and other legislative bodies) are so often the last to acknowledge and seriously address some of the big issues like these. They look out of touch and in denial when many businesses, local and state governments and majorities of Americans are already taking steps that Congress would never touch. Businesses, health providers and states have been talking about the need for health reform for years. There's powerful concern around the country about global warming and lots of businesses and individual citizens are taking serious steps to deal with it. So, too, there are many who are more than ready for sensible, comprehensive immigration reform, even if some of the talk radio screamers aren't.

I'm referring also to issues such as affirmative action -- most companies and universities were way ahead of the national political leaders when it came to acknowledging and addressing the need for it -- and gay rights -- many businesses provide the sort of amenities to same-sex-partner employees that makes their lives easier and shuns discrimination, and local and state governments have begun to see that there's no reasonable argument to be made against same-sex marriage.

I'm not saying there are any perfect and elegant solutions, but doing nothing is not an option. And it's hard to have any confidence that you'll get the outcome you want if you're not part of the process that goes into bill making. In the case of immigration (and to some extent health care), the very opponents of reform are the ones who are crying the loudest about how flawed the system is, as I've written before. 

And I'm not here to give advice to Republicans how to run their business. But, next thing you know, we'll hear their familiar refrain that the Dems froze them out of the process (which, by the way, Republicans really did when they were in charge of Congress a few years ago and which the Dems have been a great pains not to allow now). That sort of cyncism is not becoming.

Again, this is not partisan. It's about how all our leaders -- Democratic, Republican or Independent -- need to show they they're really there to lead, not just to win the next election.But for now, the Republicans really have a problem with this.

Jeff

Immigration Reform: If Not Now, When?

I HAVE TO CONFESS that when The White House announced a few weeks ago that it intends to pursue a (long overdue) comprehensive reform of our nation’s immigration policy, I was a bit skeptical. Hadn’t we just gone through a bruising and ultimately counterproductive exercise to pass an immigration reform bill a couple of years ago? And aren’t there enough tough issues on the President’s agenda right, which will tap more than enough of his energy and political capital?

Don’t get me wrong, I hope President Obama succeeds, that we can fix what everyone, from one end of the political spectrum to the other, agrees is a broken national policy (even if they don’t all agree on the fix). And I hope it happens sooner than later. But, as we saw in 2007, this is, bar none, one of the most politically explosive issues in our domestic politics. And the President is working on reversing a major economic crisis and supposedly pushing through landmark health care legislation this year (which, much as I would like to see it happen, I will believe when I see). Will this year be any different?

Ezra Klein, who blogs for The American Prospect, has his doubts, thinks this is just The White House making it appear its moving ahead in order to appease the pro-immigration constituencies that voted for Obama. At least the President gets credit for trying, even if this is a lost cause. “The New York Times story that’s exciting folks,” writes Klein, “is based off an interview with Celia Munoz [The White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and one of the most gifted immigration policy analysts in the land] that sounds like the equivalent of ‘he’ll form a commission.’ She says that ‘over the summer [Obama] will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.’ Elsewhere she says that he intends to ’start the debate’ this year. A betting man, I think, would not lay down $50 on Congress seriously considering immigration legislation this fall.”

Indeed, as that Times article reports, “Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.”

In The Politico, a roundtable of experts has mixed opinions about whether the time is now. Martin Frost, for example, a former Democratic congressman, generally a cheerleader for immigration reform, makes it sound very dim: “No year is ever a good year to seek immigration reform. Immigration reform makes Social Security reform look like a walk in the park. The Obama administration should concentrate on health care and energy legislation this year and not waste capital on this most difficult of all subjects.”

In the same Politico forum, though, Cesar Conda, a Republican strategist, says, it depends: “President Obama can get something done on immigration reform by avoiding President Bush’s mistake of allowing the debate to focus on amnesty for the current undocumented population. Obama should instead focus on creating new legal avenues for foreign workers to enter the U.S… If President Obama chooses to focus on legal immigration reforms and not amnesty, I believe he could get Republican support and get something constructive done on immigration this year.”

Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the pro-immigration group America’s Voice and, along with Munoz, one of the other leading experts on the subject, argues that now is the time for immigration reform.  “We all know the public voted for change,” Sharry writes. ” Two-thirds of voters approve of the aggressive approach being taken by the Obama White House to the myriad of reform challenges facing the country.  In addition, the majority of Americans agree that earned citizenship, combined with smart policies that significantly reduce illegal immigration, is the American way to solve this complex challenge. They understand that our immigration system is broken, and overwhelmingly support practical efforts to fix it.”

Alex Aleinikoff, who is yet another of the great minds on immigration policy in the U.S. and the Dean of the Georgetown University Law Center, wrote in today’s Washington Post that there’s a “strong case for starting this conversation now” about passing a meaningful new reform package. He argues that the system we have today to deal with immigration policy management would not be able to handle the applications for legalizing undocumented immigrants, and we would need a lot of lead time to put other pieces in place. But that’s why, he says, we should start working out the legislation sooner rather than later. Knowing it will take a while to get it passed, we might be in a better position to handle the major change.

“The substantial lead time needed for creating a credible verification system and an effective legalization program provides another argument for beginning the conversation on comprehensive immigration legislation soon,” Aleinikoff writes. “And by the time these new programs would come into force, improvement in the economy would probably make legalization efforts less controversial.”

It also strikes me that Obama and The White House know that they have the political momentum now. Will it be enough to overcome the inevitable opposition? Let’s try it and see. I would like to test Sharry’s assertion that the nation voted for change and that incoherent, counterproductive immigration policy is one of the things they would like to see changed. Besides, The White House can’t know how much political capital it will have in the bank a year from now (when we are heading into a mid-term election, a time when Congress hides from ticklish issues), let alone two years from now.

I also have to believe that this White House will do a better job of selling the virtues of a comprehensive immigration reform than the last did. Make no mistake, George W. Bush supported the last bill; I give him credit for this much. But he and his team did a rather poor job of explaining why it was necessary. And, having burned through most of its clout with Congressional Republicans by then and with an historically low favorability rating, Bush’s White House had no way to keep allies from going AWOL on the issue when they began to feel under siege.

That’s why, assuming there are enough hours in the day for The White House to hammer out this difficult new reform alongside all its other priorities, I say, why not? Yes, there will be those from the right — led by the intellectually dishonest shouters like Limbaugh, Beck and Dobbs — who will start throwing knives, and they will, in turn, ignite once again a pretty fierce and motivated — but, I’m convinced, small — segment of our population to storm the barricades. But the conditions will never be perfect, and if ever there is a time to push this through, it makes sense to start sooner than later. If not now, when?

Becoming Americans

EVERY AMERICAN -- native born or naturalized -- should have the experience of watching a naturalization ceremony, as my family and I did yesterday.

This one, held on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, was a little bit more majestic than most. And it came following a 70-anniversary commemoration of the famous concert singer Marian Anderson gave on the same spot after she was denied a chance to sing at the Daughters of the American Revolution building because she was black. The event featured outstanding performances from Sweet Honey in the Rock, The President's Own U.S. Marine Band, the Chicago Children's Choir and opera star Denyce Graves, who sang some of the same pieces Andersen sang in 1939. Colin Powell was also there to recite excerpts from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address and to welcome the new Americans with a poignant reminder of their rights and responsibilities as citizens and a story about his own parents' journey to the United States from their native Jamaica.

But, even if it had been stripped of such stellar atmospherics, the act of becoming a U.S. citizen is still as inspiring as it comes. You can sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the top of your voice, release a flock of bald eagles and wrap yourself in the American flag, but that still won't match the patriotic spirit of a naturalization ceremony.

That's because you can't help but be impressed with people who have taken an affirmative step to embrace America as their own. They're not taking it for granted, as too many of us native-born Americans do (not everyone of us, thank goodness). Many of them quite likely given up a lot to come to this country, and worked pretty hard to earn the right to raise their hands and take the Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens.

More than 200 new Americans representing 56 different nations of origin did just that at the Lincoln Memorial yesterday. That's in addition to a record number who naturalized in 2008 -- more than a million -- up from 660,000 in 2007 and just more than 700,000 in 2006, according to the Department of Homeland Security. If ever we need an affirmation that America has something powerful to offer -- that much of the rest of the world still has strong confidence in this nation's future, even if we might not at times -- this is it.

This was not the first naturalization ceremony I've seen. I've been to two or three others, one of which, I'm proud to say, I organized in a Senate Office Building. Senator Ted Kennedy spoke wistfully and movingly about his immigrant forebears at the event, almost as if no one had ever heard of his family before. And many native-born Americans watching on wept with pride for the hundreds who took the oath that day and for their country's good sense to embrace them as one of us.

That's what's so inspiring -- so truly patriotic -- about these affairs. You're watching America being remade and refreshed, as it has been over and over again since its beginning. It's cliche to say it, but that's what America is built on: its ability to take in people from all over the world and reinvent them as they reinvent America.

That fundamental truism of American life is somehow lost on the anti-immigrant pinheads who preach, as Rush Limbaugh put it recently, that immigrants will "destroy the U.S. culture." No, Rush, it's just the opposite, and those like you, who try to stand in the way of that process are not the patriots you presume to be. Apparently, they couldn't stop almost 2.5 million from becoming Americans over the last couple of years alone.

If you've never been to a naturalization ceremony, or you can't get enough of them, seek one out. Bring your kids, your students, your church, your Cub Scouts or Brownies. Offer to host an event in your area (the other ceremony I went to took place at halftime of an NBA game). Rarely will you feel so proud to be an American.

Jeff

Reasons to Be Hopeful in 2009

FOR THE NEW YEARS DAY HOLIDAY, my family and I went to New York City. We saw a Broadway musical, went to some museums, looked at Christmas windows, ate a lot, and waded through huge crowds. It was a fun time for all of us. On top of that, the visit gave some shape to the reasons I'm feeling optimistic about the year ahead.

I'm not saying that 2009 will be pain-free or prosperous, though I hope that's the case for all of us. Far more careful and knowledgeable analysts than I are suggesting that the economy might get worse before it gets better. What do I know?

But I don't feel, as some might, that this nation has fallen off a cliff and is headed for a loud, terrible splat at the bottom of the valley and that it will take us years to recover. We're probably headed for a tough year; I'm bracing myself for that. But I think we'll bounce back sooner than later. Here's some of the highly unscientific evidence I saw in New York that gave me such (cautious) optimism. 

Foreigners everywhere. Everyone in my family remarked that nearly everywhere we went we heard foreign languages or foreign accents -- almost more than we heard American English. In fact, it became a sort of game to us to be able to get close enough to hear, over the din of a crowd, whether we were hearing French, British or Australian English, Russian, German, Spanish, Italian or Arabic. Sure, there are a lot of people living in New York who speak other languages, but I'm talking about people who were clearly tourists and, by the way, spending money.

What's that mean? Well, it reminded me that America is still attractive to many others around the world, though, according to the Travel Industry Association, the U.S. share of international travel has dropped by 35 percent over the last 13 years as the world market for tourism grew by 61 percent. Yes, we're losing some ground there, and we need to do something about that. But American is still a magnet to many and likely to remain so, even after the dollar strengthens against other currencies. I don't mean tourism only but other quality goods and services America offers.

It also reminded me that we're very much part of the world, and, once this global economic malaise subsides, that will also be a source of even greater opportunity for us than it has been in the past -- economically and culturally.

That will take some effort on our part. More Americans need to learn to be a little less insular and more open to engaging with the rest of the world. But I think we've been headed in that direction for at least a generation, and the next generation will be even more so. And our success as a nation will depend upon our ability to find and serve new and growing markets around the globe and to tap the best minds we can find wherever we can find them.

Immigrants everywhere. During one of the many taxi rides we took during our three days in New York, I struck up a conversation with a Pakistani cabbie, who eventually got around to speaking with pride about his three children -- two in graduate professional schools and one in college. All of them sound likely on their way to prosperity and to making great contributions to their community and country.

Okay, it's anecdotal, and so are the dozens of identical stories I've heard from other proud immigrant cabdrivers (I talk to a lot of them) who've come to this country to work hard and support kids who will go on to be model Americans. Through immigration, this country continually draws and develops new talent and staves off the the sort of demographic implosion that many other developed nations with little immigration (such as many E.U. countries and Japan) have faced as their populations age and shrink. (Though, as you've heard this rant from me in the past, if we don't fix our immigration laws, we'll be squandering this advantage.) Moreover, people from other countries are still fighting to get into America. Given the choices, they're bullish about the promise of America, why shouldn't I be?

Innovation. New York reminds you of how much this country innovates, especially in areas such as  fashion, art, music, books, theater. Sure, it has some of the technical innovation we usually associate with, say, Silicon Valley or areas like the the Washington, D.C., Metro area, which houses a lot of biotech companies. And it's all there, in New York, bright and shiny.

Our success as a nation has long been due to innovation, even as we have lost our edge in manufacturing and agriculture to many other parts of the world over the last generation or two. We invent things, improve upon them, figure out better ways to make and distribute them. We Americans, who tire quickly of the latest new thing, are more likely than most to demand and quickly adopt the newest and most cutting edge stuff. That kind of environment is nurturing of new innovations. If anything, the rest of the world is trying to catch up to us in that department, as this article in the Economist argues.

True, there are many signs that we could lose our lead on innovation, and there are many who have called for increased investment in cultivating our talents in the sciences and engineering. But our innovation infrastructure, while quite possibly hampered by the current recession, won't be vanquished by it. It's a very solid base to soften our fall.

Global connectivity. Immigration. Innovation. Those are at least three reasons why I feel we'll get through this rough patch. We need to do more to enable us to take full advantage of these assets. But we're in as good a position as any country to build on them and to thrive once again.

Happy New Year.

Jeff

New Hope for Sensible Immigration Reform?

AS I HAVE NOTED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS (see this and this), there was little good news in 2007 for those who worked or hoped for a comprehensive fix to our broken immigration system. The tide of public opinion scared members of Congress from doing what they had to do to legalize the status of workers already in the U.S., reunite families and enable enforcement of immigration laws. And some shrill voices at both the national and local levels pressed for some highly punitive measures that made restrictionists feel good, scared a lot of immigrants (legal and undocumented) and did nothing to solve the heart of the problem.

These voices seemed to have gotten some momentum, leaving many to wonder when the pendulum would swing sufficiently back to a point that people from both sides of the partisan divide in Congress could get out from under their desks and enact the sensible legislation, like the bill that died in the Senate in late June 2007 (hopefully with some improvements).

With all that is going in the world and in this country, it seems that immigration reform may not be at the head of the line for passage in 2009. But maybe it has a better chance than one might guess at first thought.

A Washington Post editorial today pointed out that "illegal immigration does not seem to be the effective wedge issue in Virginia that some politicians once hoped it would be. One percent of likely voters rated immigration the most important issue in Virginia, according to a Washington Post poll taken before this year's election; the share was nine times larger last year. Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R), notoriously hostile to illegal immigrants, lost to Democrat Tom Perriello in an upset in Virginia's 5th District, which stretches from Danville to Charlottesville."

Similarly, earlier this month, an immigrant advocacy group, America's Voice, reported "nearly 8 in 10 (78 percent) voters consider illegal immigration to be a serious issue, and overwhelmingly, they favor a comprehensive approach to immigration reform.  By more than 2 to 1 (57 percent to 28 percent), voters prefer enacting comprehensive immigration reform to an enforcement only approach.  While the economy is the top issue on the minds of voters, more than 6 in 10 (62 percent) believe we would be better off if people who are in the United States illegally became legal taxpayers than leave the country because they are taking away American jobs (21 percent)." [My emphasis. By supporting "comprehensive" reform, these survey respondents are presumably rejecting an overly punitive, enforcement-only approach to immigration.]

What's more, America's Voice noted in a post-election report:

"Through public opinion research and analysis of the races, AV found that Americans in the so-called 'battleground' districts and states are tired of slogans and polarization that do nothing to solve our nation’s problems, and are rejecting candidates who espouse them. Voters in overwhelming numbers support candidates that call for a smart, fair, and practical approach to immigration reform, one that will bring the system under control by registering undocumented workers so they can get on the tax rolls and a path to citizenship; ensuring stronger enforcement against employers who exploit workers; and allowing a limited number of immigrants whose work is needed longterm to come to the U.S. legally rather than illegally."

That's great news. It may not be enough to say it's time to dust off the 2007 bill and push it through as soon as possible; it's hard to know at this point if the votes in Congress are there for that just yet.

But it suggests that our political leaders might be able at the very least to talk aloud thoughtfully about immigration reform without fear of being shouted down by their constituents or by rabid radio talk show ranters. Though I doubt the anti-immigrant ranting will stop, it's good to know that it might have less widespread support than our politicians thought.

Maybe -- though perhaps I should be more ambitious than this -- we can spend 2009 helping the public understand that 1) we cannot wait to fix this terribly dysfunctional system and 2) immigrants -- legal or otherwise -- are not the source of our problems. Indeed, as a group they are an asset to the United States. Maybe, just maybe, there's an opening here.

Jeff

Whither... ? (Part II)

I THINK IT'S ONLY RIGHT THAT, after pointing out on Thursday morning how hot topics such as immigration reform and same-sex marriage scarcely came up in any of the speeches from the Democratic Convention podium, Barack Obama himself waded into them somewhat on Thursday night. He said:

I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.  Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.  This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

Okay, it's only a few sentences. But considering how sensitive these issues are and that he only devoted a few sentence to each of a wide range of policy matters, I think this signals something important. Obama handled himself well on these issues, hinting where he stands (no surprise) without flaunting that position in a way that will antagonize people unnecessarily. He may not win votes on this but he gets points for trying to hear where they're coming from.

In the very same paragraph, he brought up a couple of other passionate issues:

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.  The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.

This is absolutely the right tone. It's what we need to deal with issues about which people disagree profoundly. That's in contrast to what many in the past -- and, for the most part, I mean Republicans -- who have used these to inflame passions more than cool them and to frame issues in a way that have only divided America.

To borrow a phrase I heard somewhere, this is the change we need.

Jeff

Whither Immigration, Same-Sex Marriage at Democratic Convention?

Speaking, as I did last post, about U.S. immigration policy, my wife pointed out to me this morning how little it has come up in the public exhortations at the Democratic National Convention this week. So, too, same-sex marriage, which was a huge point of contention in the last Presidential election cycle, mostly because the Republicans did everything they could to make it so.

To be fair, it's not as if there were no references to immigration in the official, public part of the convention (that which we in TV Land can see). But they were few and brief.

In a speech in the not-so-prime-time moment of 4:45 p.m. ( guess that would be 6:45 p.m. Eastern and 3:45 p.m. Pacific) on Monday, August 25, Patricia Madrid, Co-Chair, of the Democratic Party Platform Committee and former former Attorney General of New Mexico, devoted all of one paragraph to the subject, saying, "Our immigration system is broken. We need comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal local efforts, and that’s the change Barack Obama and Democratic leadership will provide."

At a higher profile moment during last night's proceedings, Senator John Kerry, touched on the issue fleetingly and not-to-squarely when he said, "Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you’re against it."

Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano, whose bio on the convention Web site says she "leads the nation in addressing illegal immigration, and was the first governor to call for the National Guard at the border at federal expense," didn't even mention the word immigration in her convention speech.

But, under the heading of "Renewing the American Community," the Democratic National Committee's Platform Committee Report admirably devotes roughly a page (out of 94 pages) to the subject, saying: "....[O]ur current immigration system has been broken for far too long. We need comprehensive immigration reform, not just piecemeal efforts. We must work together to pass immigration reform in a way that unites this country, not in a way that divides us by playing on our worst instincts and fears. We are committed to pursuing tough, practical, and humane immigration reform in the first year of the next administration." But don't expect any reading of the full platform report on the floor of the convention. You really have to look hard for this.

As for same-sex marriage, suffice it to say that it doesn't even show up when you type the words "same-sex" into the convention Web site's search engine. 

This is more of a lament than a complaint, mind you. Sad to say, I think the Democrats were smart to keep the issue out of the convention limelight. The goal now is to win and deal with this issue after the election, as they inevitably must. They know as well as the Republicans do that there is a huge well of anger in America against immigration and, to some extent in some quarters, immigrants. Some politicians have devoted their careers to fanning the anti-immigration/immigrant flames, and "journalists" like Lou Dobbs and radio talk show shouters have boosted their ratings by constantly misinforming their audiences and egging on their rage.

Last year, when an earnest attempt to fix the broken immigration system worked its way through Congress, our representatives on the Hill were assailed by constituents and in many cases (including John McCain, who co-sponsored the Senate version) burned. The lesson: don't touch this.

Or, if you want to play nasty, you can seize the issue to tap some strong sentiments in the American electorate and to pillory anyone who is nominally pro-immigration (and the restrictionists will define that very broadly).

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans can resist that temptation, as at least one segment of the party is prone to do. If they do, they are playing with fire. They risk not only fomenting a nasty upsurge of anti-immigrant fervor but also making McCain and other Republicans who favored immigration reform (including George W. Bush, by the way) look bad. My bet is that in the name of party of unity, they will do as the Democrats have done at this week's convention -- at least on immigration.

Now, same-sex marriage is another story. What will the Republicans do this time?

Jeff

Foreign-born U.S. Olympians -- 'Different'?

IN HIS COLUMN IN  NEW YORK TIMES TODAY, Tom Friedman points out that the U.S. Olympic team, which is leading the field at this writing in total medals won, is made up of 33 foreign-born athletes. He quotes Robert Hormats of Goldman Sachs as pointing out how ironic this is "at the same time you have a rising call in America to restrict immigration."

Neither Hormats, Friedman nor I are the first to point to this irony,. But it is rich and instructive, nonetheless and got me wondering how the immigration restrictionists have to say about it. They might undermine their populist posture by pouring water on one of America's sacred institutions: sports.

An Associated Press story on the subject quotes Ira Mehlman, of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, the leading anti-immigration group in the U.S., as saying that "foreign-born Olympians merit public support — but should be viewed as exceptions in a system fraught with flaws and unfairness. 'Not everybody coming into the U.S. is an Olympic athlete or a Nobel prize winner,' Mehlman said. 'Maybe this ought to be a wake-up call that we ought to design an immigration policy that seeks out exceptional people. Now, most of it is based on extended families. ... you don't have a policy designed to bring in people who fit the needs of this country.'"

In the same article, William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration said, "The American public is starting to sour on all immigration in reaction to rampant illegal immigration. The danger is if people say, 'Look at these immigrants who are in the Olympics — therefore you should provide a path to citizenship for all the illegal immigrants in the country."'

Those are some remarkable spins on an issue that these two men would probably just as soon not have to discuss too often: immigration is okay as long as we get the 'good' immigrants, and the success of foreign-born U.S. Olympic athletes is a slippery slope -- Americans might actually believe that immigration is a good thing!

This whole irony and Mehlman's response remind me of a scene in the movie "Do the Right Thing" when Mookie, played by Spike Lee, is arguing with Pino, played by John Turturro, an overtly -- almost proudly -- racist white guy who helps run the pizza parlor where Mookie works:

MOOKIE: Who's your favorite basketball player?
PINO: Magic Johnson.
MOOKIE: And not Larry Bird?  Who's your favorite movie star?
PINO: Eddie Murphy.
MOOKIE: Last question: Who's your favorite rock star?
(Pino doesn't answer, because he sees the trap he's already fallen into.)
MOOKIE: Barry Manilow? Pino, no joke.  C'mon, answer.
VITO: It's Prince.  He's a Prince freak.
PINO: Shut up.  The Boss!  Bruuucce!!!!
MOOKIE: Sounds funny to me.  As much as you say n____r this and n___r that, all your favorite people are "n___rs."
PINO: It's different.  Magic, Eddie, Prince are not n___rs, I mean, are not Black.  I mean, they're Black but not really Black. They're more than Black. It's different.

So, if I understand Mehlman's response to the fact that there are 33 foreign-born members of the U.S. Olympic team, he's saying the same thing: they're different from the rest of the people he trashes categorically. They contribute to the commonweal and inspire the American people.

The problem with this is twofold. First, so much of the anti-immigration community's rhetoric leaves the impression that most, if not all, immigrants are criminal, competitive with native-born Americans in the workplace, unwilling to assimilate into the "American Way," lazy -- the whole litany. So it's hard for any immigrant to get the feeling that, like foreign-born members of the U.S. Olympic teams, they're welcome here. Just as Magic Johnson, Eddie Murphy and Prince would  strain to find comfort in Pino's pizza parlor.

Second, how are we to know who are the "good" immigrants, and who should be the judge of that?  How are we to know that a poor immigrant who is currently enrolled in a state university in the U.S. will not someday go on to be a great scientist, civic leader, artist or philanthropist -- has been the case with so many immigrants, who came with  "only the clothes on their backs" and 35 cents in their pockets.

And if letting in the "good" immigrants is okay with Mehlman and his ilk, why do they do ferociously oppose expanding the number of H1-B visas the U.S. gives out to highly skilled workers, those who will presumably help U.S. industry remain competitive around the world with new innovations?

As for Gheen, who fears that the success of foreign-born U.S. athletes will make the case for legalizing undocumented immigrants, his argument is a red herring. Except perhaps for one athlete, who I think (I'm not clear on this) came to the U.S. illegally with his parents when he was four years old and later became a U.S. citizen, as far as I can tell, most of these athletes came to the U.S. through legal immigration channels. Here is an example of how the restrictionists play the game of making it seem like all immigrants are illegal, if not by technical designation, then by perception.

And what would be so bad if we did find a way to make more of the supposedly millions of undocumented immigrants legal -- particularly those who are already contributing positively to American society? How long can we afford a system that leaves them and their employers in limbo and pretend that we don't need them in many sectors of our economy and cultural life? How long can the restrictionists continue to rail that the system is broken (which everyone agrees) and then do everything possible to block practical ways of fixing it?

The fact is, as Friedman implies, if you look into the family history of any of the athletes representing us so well in Beijing (and, by the way, of many of the restrictionists like Mehlman and Gheen), you will likely find an immigrant who came to this shores a generation or more ago. At that time, no one could have predicted that he or she would be the ancestor of a U.S. Olympic athlete, who is now making the rest of of feel so proud.

Jeff

What If Ted Baxter Were President?

APPARENTLY, I MISSED THE BIG NEWS, when it came out nearly a month ago that CNN anchor Lou Dobbs had waved off suggestions that he might run for President. That's right, of the United States.

"I'm an advocacy journalist," Dobbs told the Detroit Free Press. "I cannot imagine being a candidate for any office and certainly not president. I would be the candidate of last resort."

Any real, self-effacing "journalist" would have merely laughed at the question. But Dobbs had to give some justification as to why he wouldn't run. "I'm an advocacy journalist!"

(Well, at least Dobbs is honest about one thing: there's nothing objective or dispassionate about his rants on CNN prime business show. It's advocacy! Now it can be told! One has to wonder how the Cable NEWS Network can continue to justify what Dobbs does as news. What it must certainly be is a ratings grabber, which is the only reason I can think CNN would continue to leave him on the air, particularly in such a prominent time slot.)

But the Free Press interview was then. This is now. Like a latter-day Ted Baxter, so giddy that anyone would even suggest he run for President, Dobbs recently told the Wall Street Journal, "I cannot say never."

Reminds me a bit of the time many years ago when Arnold Schwarzenegger, appearing on the David Letterman Show, said with a straight face, "I am the best thing that ever happened to the Kennedy family." Like Dobbs's statement to the Journal, that line got a huge laugh. But the difference is that Schwarzenegger was joking -- spoofing himself, really. 

Dobbs's sense of self-importance also rose its ugly head when he told the Free Press last month: "These two parties are great about discussing wedge issues like gun control, or abortion or gay marriage but have little to offer in dealing with issues and challenges that matter to most people like free trade or illegal immigration."

I'm not sure that free trade or illegal immigration are issues that matter most to most Americans, though they're important. There's no doubt, however, that Dobbs has done a brilliant job of whipping a committed core of Americans who do care about these issues into a frenzy. Many people give him a lot of credit -- along with many of the other disingenuous talk show shouters -- for derailing the comprehensive federal immigration reform bill that was up for consideration on Capitol Hill last year.

And, because the federal government is now doing nothing to address a policy matter that should have been fixed a long time ago, Dobbs and his posse are beating up on the feds and Congress for, what else, doing nothing. If this problem of immigration policy ever got fixed, what would Dobbs have to talk about? Oh, of course, the evils of outsourcing.

What he probably won't acknowledge is that most of those Americans who care about the immigration problem don't really agree with where him and other restrictionists on some core points. As the Pew Research Center found in a survey last June, while many Americans were ambivalent about whether the immigration reform bill was a good one (regardless of political affiliation, only about a third favored it and large percentages -- about one quarter to one third, depending upon affiliation -- were undecided), most favored "a way for people who are in this country illegally to gain legal citizenship under certain conditions," according to the Pew Research Center's findings.

"Overall, 63 percent of the public -- and nearly identical numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents -- favor such an approach if illegal immigrants 'pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs,'" the Pew Research Center concluded.

What's more, according to the survey, "In general, the public is less supportive of providing 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants than it is of providing a way for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. Even so, a majority of Americans (54 percent) say they favor amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country if they pass background checks and meet other conditions."

If that's the case, then why are the presidential candidates -- especially the Republicans -- contorting themselves to avoid saying anything about immigration, let alone utter the word "amnesty?" Maybe they're worried that Dobbs if takes himself so seriously, he'll actually run for President.

Jeff

A Race to the Bottom

ONE OF THE MOST MEMORABLE MOMENTS IN THE MOVIE "BROADWAY DANNY ROSE," Woody Allen's 1984 comedy (and, for my money, Allen's funniest) about a two-bit talent agent, comes when the title character stumbles upon a pissing match between two alleged mobsters at a a backyard barbecue somewhere in New Jersey.

In front of a small gathering of fellow partygoers, the two wise guys are trying to outdo each other by saying that "money ain't so important to me." And to prove how little they care about money, they rip up hundred dollar bills in front of everyone, each time tearing up more and more bills from huge wads. One wonders just how far they will go, who will stop first. From the pained looks on their faces, they to appear to be hoping that someone will tackle them and put an end to the nonsense. But Danny Rose leaves the the scene before we see who blinks first or how this will turn out.

The latest spat between Repubulican Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani over who sounds tougher on illegal immigrants reminds me of this money ripping scene. Again, one wonders just how far they can take it, how much they can posture, how bad ass they can sound. Who knows where it will end.

Their clash, which the Washington Post reported on in some detail on August 17, focuses on Romney's and Giuliani's policies of dealing with illegal immigrants when they were, respectively, Governor of Massachussetts and and Mayor New York City.

Romney and his surrogates have accused Giuliani of enacting a policy as Mayor that effectively encouraged illegal immigrants to settle in New York and looked the other way once they were there. Indeed, as the Post article reports, "In his first year as mayor in 1994, [Giuliani] said of illegal immigrants: 'If you come here, and you work hard, and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city.'" What's more, he was known, as I pointed out in my last post, as a champion of immigrants.

Giuliani deflects this by blasting the federal government for not taking tough enough measures to enforce the rule of law and to deport illegals. He also has suggested the Romney's adminstration did little to identify and get rid of illegals in Massachusetts when he was Governor.

It's sad, really, that Giuliani has so distanced himself from his most admirable posture as a pro-immigration (but not pro-illegal immigrant!) advocate. It's sad that he has not had the courage to stand up to the rising tide of antipathy for immigrants and immigration in the U.S. right now. He could play a valuable role as a teacher to those who don't understand the value of immigrants and immigration to America, and he could help draw a bright and careful line between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants, a line that I worry has gotten awful blurry in the minds of many Americans.

But he probably feels that his job is not to teach and not to go against the tide right now. He's running for President. He cannot afford to piss anyone off. He's got to fish where the most fish are. That's what the smart political consultants are obviously telling him, Romney and the other candidates, many of whom have been equally undistinguished when it comes to this issue.

And they've seen John McCain get hammered for his strong support of the ill-fated immigration reform bill in the Senate,  They don't want to end up in the same ditch with him. From the point of view of running a campaign, which is just about getting elected, that's perfectly understandable, if unsettling.

But consider this: whom are Giuliani, Romney and the other political leaders who refuse to stand up to the anti-immigrant tide alienating? True, in the shorter run, immigrant voters -- the largest among them Latino -- probably aren't going to help either Giuliani, Romney or any Republican win their primary and perhaps not even the general election (though that's debatable). Most of them (and I'm talking about legal immigrants who are citizens, because only they can vote) aren't Republicans. Indeed, while they represent a growing and dynamic community, they are not voting in large numbers.

Right now.

But at some point, maybe not too far in the future, guys like Giuliani or Romney will want to turn to immigrant voters and their extended communities, and what can they expect from from these communities? Nada, baby. Once again, Republicans are mortgaging their future relationship with immigrant communities and other ethnic groups that have been based on immigration.

I would argue, too, that the rest of us, non-first generation immigrants, who rely heavily on the immigrant community in our daily lives, ought to see how this race to the bottom -- the effort by politicians to outdo one another on their anti-immigrant bone fides -- hurts our own self-interest. We should let them know how we feel in town hall meetings and at the ballot box.

Jeff

P.S. Click here for the trailer to "Broadway Danny Rose." And, while this has nothing to do with the subject above, I can't resist including some precious lines from the script:
*
Danny Rose: If you take my advice, you'll become one of the great balloon-folding acts of all time! Really, 'cause I don't just see you folding balloons in joints. You listen to me, you're gonna fold balloons at universities and colleges.
*
Tina Vitale: I like it when he takes the microphone off the stand and sort of throws the microphone from hand to hand.
Danny Rose: That's my gesture. I gave him that.
Tina Vitale: Years ago he took the microphone off the stand.
Danny Rose: But he didn't throw it from hand to hand. I used to do that in nightclub acts.
Tina Vitale: So you taught him to throw the microphone from hand to hand...
Danny Rose: I taught him everything he knows.
*
Tina Vitale: They shot him in the eyes.
Danny Rose: Oh my God, he's blind?
Tina Vitale: He's dead...
Danny Rose: Of course, the bullets would go right through...

Who Will Tell the People the Truth About Immigration?

SINCE THE DEFEAT OF THE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO in the U.S. Senate, we've heard most analysts say that this will be the last chance for this Congress and this Administration to attempt any such broad-sweeping overhaul.

Next year, they note, is an election year, so no sane politician, especially those who are standing for reelection, would dare bring up such a dangerously controversial policy matter, no matter how badly this country needs to retool what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. Indeed, it seems we don't even have to be in an election year for the politicians to be stepping gingerly around the issue. Many on both sides of the partisan divide who we had assumed favored some sort reform scrambled for the cover of "no" votes at the last moment for fear that they would run into a buzz saw of voter discontent (and opposition distortion) in 2008.

Sadly, they have reason to be concerned. We all know about the tsunamis of phone calls and e-mails that swamped Senate offices, incited, some believe, by right-wing talk radio shouters and other anti-immigrant (or, more kindly: "restrictionist") rabble rousers.

And we've heard about instances like the one I mentioned last week of Prince William County, Virginia, which was considering a local measure to prohibit access to public services to illegal immigrants. The measure eventually passed, as this story in the Washington Post reports, though it was softened a bit from the proposed version. My favorite quote from the story came from Woodbridge, Va.'s Chris King, who supported the measure because it would supposedly stop the cultural decay that immigrants have brought to the community: "I'm tired of pressing '1' for English" on the phone," he said.

Okay, I'm being a little cheeky; in today's Post, there is a story about how many immigrant residents of the very same Prince William County have a tendency to keep chickens in their suburban backyards -- which is a violation of local zoning laws and such a terrible annoyance to other neighbors that many are moving out and property values are dropping. I won't dismiss that, just as has always been the case, immigrants often clash with the dominant American culture and the romantic notion of the melting pot should not always trump the hardship that it can create for others. There are laws and mores that newcomers must follow.

Just yesterday, The Gallup Poll released some emipirical data that, I'm sorry to say, backs up much of the anecdotal evidence our politicians have been reacting to. It basically demonstrates that most Americans think immigrants have detriminent impacts on the the nation's economy, morality, crime and tax situation.

                                                                                 

For each of   the following areas, please say whether immigrants to the United States   are making the situation in the country better or worse, or not having much   effect. How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?
2007 Jun 4-24 based   on "better"   (sorted by "total")	Better	Worse	Not much   effect	Net better   minus worse
	%	%	%
Food, music, and   the arts	40	9	46	31
The economy in   general	28	46	23	-18
Social and moral   values	19	37	41	-18
Job opportunities   for you and your family	12	34	52	-22
Taxes	11	55	28	-44
The crime situation	4	58	34	-54

What's more, these negative views of immigrants seem to be getting more intense over the last several years as this next table shows.

                                                                                     

For each of   the following areas, please say whether immigrants to the  United States are making the situation in the country better or worse, or not having much effect.Net: % better minus % worse
	Crime	Job opportunities	Food, music, and the   arts	Economy	Taxes	Social and moral values
Total
2007 Jun 4-24	-54	-22	31	-18	-44	-18
2004 Jun 9-30	-41	-26	34	-19	-33	-9
2002 Jun 3-9	-42	-23	44	-4	-38	-5
2001 Jun 11-17	-43	-20	50	0	-34	1

So, yeah, a "smart" politician will wait this issue out, watch the tide roll away from the shore until voter antipathy toward immigrants (much of which, Gallup points out, corresponds to concerns many Americans more generally about the economy and personal economic opportunity) turns around.

John McCain, pundits are saying, was more "courageous" than smart. In addition to holding fast to his position that we stay the course with respect to Iraq, he has been an leading advocate for immigration reform. That, according to many, has done him no favors, and his campaign is in a fundraising and organizational tailspin. His standing in the polls has plunged, too.

Rudolph Giuliani used to be one of the shining examples of the pro-immigration advocate when he was Mayor of New York City. (About 10 years ago, I personally -- and successfully -- lobbied my own organization to offer him a keynote address at our annual meeting because of this even though some of my liberal colleagues were uneasy about giving a podium to a guy who pushed a conservative agenda in other ways.) Now, as a Presidential candidate, he is backing from his pro-immigrant profile. I won't say he's not the same person, but he -- and the other candidates who have taken steps in the same direction -- obviously know which way the wind is blowing.

So much for leadership. So much for profiles in courage. Again, without minimizing the real concerns that many Americans have with the changes immigrants are bringing to this country, who will stand up and speak loudly and clearly on behalf of immigration? Notice I didn't say "on behalf of illegal" immigrants. No one is in favor of illegal immigrants. Certainly, the illegals themselves would rather  have a system that enables them to come here legally and fill jobs, which are readily available and often unfilled.

That's what the proposed immigration reform legislation was about, or supposed to be. Who knows if it would have truly achieved the results we wanted, but we can be sure that now we'll have the same bad situation we've always had.

What we don't need are the Tom Tancredos, Lou Dobbs's, the FAIRs, the far-right talk show shouters and the other masters of intellectual dishonesty who are devoted to misleading the public about what immigrants offer this country. We need someone who will speak intelligently, without hyperbole and without dismissing the real difficulties that accompany immigration -- unlike the restrictionists, who paint immigration as only a bad thing, or the ones on the very opposite end of the spectrum who seem to get upset with any regulation on immigrants.

Businesses, ethnic groups and bleeding hearts (like me, I suppose) have long played the role of convincing the public that immigration is good for the country. But they have been discredited (unfairly) by the anti-immigrant crowd as too self-interested to be objective (as if the anti-immigrant types aren't).

The question is, then, who will most Americans believe when he or she stands up and tells them the truth: that immigrants are, notwithstanding some difficulties, enormously valuable to this country?

I'm not sure I have the answer myself. But we need to find out.

Jeff

Why We Need National Immigration Policy Reform -- And Why We Won't Get It

IF WE NEED AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF EMOTION BEHIND THE OPPOSITION to the recently defeated immigration reform bill, as well as an illustration of why we need reform in the first place, let's look at what's happening in Prince William County, Virginia.

As reported in the Washington Post, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors is set to vote  on a package of new provisions that would require any county officials -- police, school administrators, medical providers, library workers, social service providers, recreation agency workers, and so forth -- to verify the legal residence of anyone who is trying to use county services or of anyone arrested for even the smallest infraction. The objective: the weed out illegal immigrants and to make everyone an agent of that effort.

It is all based on an assumption, embedded in the Board's resolution that "illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness" and that "illegal immigration may be encouraged by public agencies within the county by failing to verify immigration status as a condition of providing public services."

"Citizens will no longer accept that our hands are tied and that responsibility lies with the federal government," said Supervisor John T. Stirrup Jr. (R-Gainesville), who proposed the resolution last month, reportedly with the help of a legal team supported by the virulently anti-immigrant organization, Federation of American Immigration Reform. "They want action."

According to Stirrup, "If they're here illegally, we have no responsibility to educate them," a policy that the U.S. Supreme Court has already said is unconstitutional. Stirrup compassionately told the Post that when it comes to emergency medical care, patients would be treated but promptly reported to the federal immigration agency.

The Post also reported that the proposed resolution, which the eight county supervisors (all up for reelection this fall) have all said they will support, also contains a provision that would give legal residents the right to sue Prince William County "if they suspect that a county agency has failed to comply with the resolution's aim of denying services and reporting violators." This means every citizen can be in on the act of turning in suspected illegal immigrants. Or as Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute told the Post, that particular measure is "as close to encouraging vigilante action as I have ever seen on paper."

Who knows how much they've thought this one through, but can you imagine the implications? If you wanted to take out a library card, or, presumably, even a book, once you've already gotten a card, the librarians would be required to search into your background to verify if you are a legal resident. To be truly fair, they should conduct such a search on everyone, right? It wouldn't be right to make assumptions about people just because of the way they look or talk. Many of those people who appear to be illegals might actually be legal residents or even full-fledged citizens. And many who appear to be legal might just turn out to be illegal. How would we ever know without checking everyone?

If that's what we're in for, the simple act of getting a library card could become mighty cumbersome. So could enrolling your kids in schools, getting medical treatment or social services. Where does it end? Should we all carry national identification cards, something that Americans profoundly reject whenever it comes up in public discourse? No public official has the guts to suggest that.

Let's consider also how our public servants feel about this. We get a taste of it from the Post article, which noted that Prince William County Police Chief Charlie T. Deane was not consulted about the pending legislation but that he wrote in a letter to the supervisors about a similar measure with a warning of "a potential chilling effect on witness cooperation and victim-witness cooperation." We know from many other cases around the country that local law enforcement officials are very hesitant to get involved in enforcing federal immigration laws, in part because of the difficulty of sorting through the paperwork (though the federal government is getting better with that) and because they fear they will compromise their relationships with local communities.

Finally, let's consider why those immigrants -- illegal and legal -- are there in the first place. There are jobs -- in the case of Prince William County, a lot of construction jobs -- and affordable housing. They are filling those jobs, keeping the economy moving. I don't doubt that with these populations there might also be a rise in some social problems -- crime and the like. Let us not excuse or defend that (though I suspect that most of those here illegally have nothing to do with those social problems and are, other than their illegal status, bothering no one). Nor should we excuse or defend the fact that many of these people are in the country illegally and their employers are using their services illegally.

But this seems to me to be the whole reason why Congress needed to act in some meaningful way to fix what everyone -- left, right and center -- agreed was a messed up policy. We have for too long had a situation where the rule of law has been ignored and flaunted. That needed to be fix. But it won't be now. It was the rage of many of the same kind of people who are pressing for the proposed provisions in Prince William County, Virginia, who killed those efforts to fix the mess. And they were proud to have killed it!

So it seems their goal is just to push these poor immigrants out of their midst and to offer no solution for how we should fill the huge gap in our workforce and social network once the immigrants  are gone.

This makes no sense.

Jeff