Senate is to Vote Today

CBS reports that the Senate is scheduled to vote on the Dream Act today.  The House passed the legislation last night with 216 votes to 198.  Interestingly, a few of those votes in favor were from 8 Republicans.  CBS is predicting the legislation to be filibustered, but those 8 Republicans that crossed party lines could show some glimmer of hope.  Jeff Sessions is one of the bill's strong critics, saying that the Dream Act does not solve what Americans want Congress to do--end the lawlessness of immigration.  President Obama, on the other hand, praised the passing of the legislation in the House.

After talking about the Dream Act in class all semester, I have come to the conclusion I want it to pass.  I think this legislation is a healthy compromise to the number of children stuck here and without any means to make a life back in their original country.  That is one reason why I have never been able to support Republicans on immigration policy because they fail to look into the heart of the issue.  The estimated 13 million illegal immigrants in this country are not some growing cancer that is going to destruct our society.  These young immigrants who want to contribute to society, through serving or going to college, deserve a fair chance.  I was a little offended by Jeff Sessions claiming he knows what Americans want and that want is only to enforce the law.  I felt it was only a political ploy, and he truly does not speak for many Americans, like myself, that really want to see some sort of policy that addresses the complications to illegal immigration.  These Republicans criticize amnesty, yet they offer no solutions.  If they fail to compromise on immigration, they are not serving in American's best interests.

Perceptions on Immigration: Are They Getting Any Better?

Today, in a rhetoric class I am taking, someone in the class tried arguing for SB1070, and it made me question if people's perceptions on immigration are getting any better.  First off, she failed to do enough research on the topic, and she only reiterated the negative sentiments on illegal immigration without back up her argument with logic and facts.  Secondly, she lost credibility with me when she faltered on one of my questions.  Earlier this semester, I went to one of the SB1070 debates, and a University of Arizona law professor deemed the writers of the legislation purposely kept the language vague.  I asked the girl in my class what she thought about the professor's assessment, and she failed in even identifying Susan Bolton by her name.

Watching this presentation, full of assumptions and not enough facts, makes me wonder if people cannot stop and think logically about the implications and true issues with SB1070.  I have hopes that a compromise will be a solution to immigration policy, but when people hold emotionally driven and polarizing thoughts on immigration, I sadly question if we, as a nation, will ever find an adequate solution to immigration policy.

Lou Dobbs: New Look on Immigration

I find it interesting that Lou Dobbs has retracted a little from his previous statements about illegal immigration. Before this interview, I was under the impression that Lou Dobbs did not believe in giving any sorts of rights to illegal immigrants, but his stated side with Bill O'Reilly made me think other wise.  I think this change of heart by Lou Dobbs is a hopeful sign that people can settle for the middle.  With the failure of Bush's immigration legislation and the Dream Act, I think, like Lou Dobbs demonstrated here, that politicians and American citizens need to compromise on immigration policy.

It was Only a Dream...

David Frum from The Week describes in his editorial how the Dream Act has become more like an actual nightmare.  Frum cannot invision the Dream Act passing during the lame-duck period, and he sees it as a political ploy to please and mobilize Hispanic voters before the 2012 elections.  Then he explains three reasons of why the Dream Act not passing is a good thing.  The first reason is that older illegal immigrants will use falsified documents to file under the Dream Act, which automatically halts deportation. He also criticizes how the Department of Homeland Security cannot use previous information from the Dream Act to deport someone.  Another fault Frum sees is that children can sponsor their parents from amnesty starting at 12 years old. Lastly, he explains how the Dream Act gives a reason to young people to come to the United States and receive amnesty.

I understand where Frum comes from with his criticism of the Dream Act, but I feel he misses the big picture of what the legislation intends to do.  If the law passes, it will help many that have seen the United States as their home since they were little, but they are not legal residents.  I feel those number of young illegal immigrants are more substantive than the number of people that will abuse the Dream Act.  Many systems in the system are misused in larger proportions (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), yet no one seems to consider those issues when discussing the Dream Act.  If we as a country can only look at the negative consequences immigration policy will bring, I fear we will never reach a conclusion on immigration.

U.K.: Getting Things Done?

In previous posts, the U.K. and its recent stance on immigration has been making controversial news.  Now officially, the U.K. has limited the amount of non-EU immigrants allowed into their country.  They are now only admitting 22,000 immigrants into the country, which is a fifth of the immigrants allowed into the UK in 2009.  Along with this, students and family members of visa holders are being limited from 196,000 to 100,000.  Despite these numbers, David Cameron, Prime Minister, declared that 1,000 visas will be used a year to reserve spots for highly specialized individuals.  Many inside the U.K. claim that immigration needs to be under better control because of the burden on public services.

It is nice to see that the UK can pass legislation, unlike the US, but it is also discouraging to see them passing almost close to nativist policies.  One thing I cannot find myself to agree on is the restriction on non-EU students let into the country.  As we have discussed in class, one of the more beneficial aspects of globalization and immigration is the flow of ideas and cultures, and I think by restricting students, the UK is losing an opportunity to gain more knowledge as a country.  As someone who has studied there, I have seen some positive effects immigration has had on their country.  They have even adopted curry as their unofficial national food.

Another Political Cartoon

In looking back at this semester, one important aspect I have learned is that cartoons, like this above, are myths.  This cartoon depicts that Mexicans do not want to assimilate as Americans, and they are hypocrites for stating they want to be Americans.  Obviously, all three of our books we have read have proven that this just is not the case.  For example, Leo Chavez in his book discusses the language barrier and how that Mexicans have learned English over the generations, just like other immigrant groups have done in the past.  Hopefully, people can see past the argument that Latino immigrants do not want to assimilate into American culture because that is obviously not the issue.  This country needs to figure out an effective immigration policy that does not allow for silly arguments, like assimilation, to happen.

Is it possible?

Following up with the remarks of Bill Richardson, The Los Angeles Times reported that the White House, along with the senate, are pushing for the Dream Act Legislation during this lame duck period.  The article explains that some, including immigration expert Angela Kelley, see this legislation as a good strategy for both the Democrats and Republicans.  Another political analyst, Javier Ortiz, does not see the need for Republicans to pass the legislation.  He explains that Latinos will vote for Republicans independent from immigration reform.

I found this article interesting because we have discussed in class the Dream Act passing during the lame duck period.  Overall, I think it would help both parties to pass this legislation because the Democrats will not appear so defeated, and it looks like the Republicans will work towards bi-partisanship in the next two years.  I honestly do not think Ortiz's point on Latino voters will always hold true.  The reelection of Harry Reid over Sharron Angle demonstrates that Democrats still do benefit tremendously from the Latino demographic.  I think what Congress decides to do with this legislation will set the tone on immigration reform for the next two years.  If it passes, I hope that the politicians can work to pass more immigration reform under the new Republican-run House, but if the Dream Act fails to go through, I do not believe we will see any reform for at least two more years.

Does Reform Have a Chance Now?

Something we have discussed in class is the chance of immigration reform passing during Congress's lame duck period.  Bill Richardson vocalized he believes that immigration policy change has a better chance of passing now than it did with the Democrat-run Congress before.  He stated that he feels Republicans might be more open towards the idea because they do not want to become a party that says no to every piece of legislation.  Despite this hope, he explained that it was legislation still had awhile to go.

I have to agree with Richardson that the chances are better.  A big reason the Dream Act failed was because it was too controversial for an election year.  Now that the election has finished, I hope that both parties have the will to create some bi-partisanship legislation that deals with immigration.

SB 1070's Effects

SB 1070 still had an affect on Latinos in Arizona, with around 100,000 leaving Arizona since the passing of the law.  It is estimated that around a forth of those moved back to Mexico, and the report did not include who was legal residents or not.  The report conducted also included that these migrations will actually hurt Arizona's economy.  The rest of the article goes on to explain SB 1070 and immigration law.

Even though many parts of SB 1070 were struck down, I feel the supporters of the bill are still reaping the benefits.  The law intended to scare illegal immigrants away, but unfortunately this report does not show how many legal residents left because of the legislation, also.  I also found it interesting that the report included an economic take on this massive migration because that is definitely an unfortunate side effect to cracking down on immigration.

Immigration and Sexism

Currently, the Supreme Court is hearing a case, where the defendant claims part of United State's Immigration Laws are gender discriminatory.  The law states U.S. citizen, unwed mothers can transfer their citizenship to their child if the child lives in the U.S. for just one year.  U.S. citizen, unwed fathers, on the other hand, need to have their child living in the U.S. for five years in order for the child to receive citizenship.  Ruben Flores-Villar is challenging this law because he was denied legal status, despite his father being a U.S. citizen.  Currently, he is claiming this law violates the 5th amendment.  The article also discusses how the justices appeared to feel with Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg appearing sympathetic.

I am not sure how this case will play out, but Chief Justice Roberts said the only way to fix this constitutionally was to "equalize" the law.  Overall, I feel the law does not make sense because it is completely biased towards mothers.  Personally, I feel it should be one year, regardless of the parent's sex.  I think it would be too difficult to move the mother's requirement up to five years.

Wrap-Up of Immigration in 2010 Midterm Elections

Here is a video from the New York Times; Lawrence Downes and David Shipley discuss how immigration has played out in this past election.




They discuss many issues that we have already covered in class.  Downes not only goes into the negativity surrounding immigration during the election, but he specifically acknowledges the extreme scare tactics that Sharron Angle used during her election.  He also discusses Obama's role, and he summarizes how Obama has made a substantial and clear stance on immigration reform but lacks in actual action.

I think this video was informative to watch from the standpoint of post-election.  I feel all these issues that have been discussed in this video and in class are unfortunately going to drop out of the pressing political discourse.  This may become beneficial to actually having something done in Washington, but it also might cause more apathy since the issue is not so pressing.

Something's Getting Done?

In the U.S., one of the biggest issues of immigration is the lack of changing the actual policy.  This is not a problem in the United Kingdom since they recently enacted a new immigration policy there.  A pivotal aspect of this legislation is to limit the amount of international students not studying in elite universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge.  As someone that did an exchange program over there with one of their standard universities, I was really disappointed to hear this piece of news.  I met some exceptional international students over at my school Leeds Met, and it is a shame that the opportunity might not be extended to them anymore.  I would be ashamed if the United States adopted a policy to lessen the amount of international students to come here and study.  I feel this kind of migration in the world is a great way for not only people to learn about different cultures, but it also helps exchange ideas and philosophies that might of not been discovered before.  I really hope the international students in the U.K. really push for the parliament to repeal this act because I do not feel this is the way to accurately address their increase in immigration.

SB1070 in Retrospect

Alia Beard Rau, from The Arizona Republic, looked into what SB1070 has done in the past three months.  Rau reports that there has been no arrests since the implementation of the law.  Along with this, not one Arizona citizen has sued an officer or police department because of not enforcing the law.  One thing to note, says Rau, is that Phoenix's law enforcement agency refused to report any arrests to the media.  I found this interesting since Apairo is responsible for that district and one of the most staunch advocates of the bill.  Also, Jan Brewer did not comment on the last three months, either.

It is interesting that the supporters of this legislation refused to comment on the last three months, and I feel it indicates some sort of defeat from those key players.  Although many portions went through after Susan Bolton's ruling, I, as an Arizonan citizen, do not even feel effected by the sections in effect.  It will be interesting to see if this law will cause any change in the next year or so because I feel if it does not, it really only functioned as a catalyst to the immigration debate for this election year.

Another "Angle"

Sharron Angle was back at it again with immigration by releasing this new ad campaign:



She first starts by stating illegal immigrants come over here and join gangs.  I am also in rhetoric class this semester, and I can already tell you she has committed two major logical fallacies in this accusation.  She has a slippery slope fallacy because she depicts this picture: illegal immigrant come here, then join violent gangs, and then cause worry to American families.  Obviously, this is a very narrow point-of-view on immigration, and it does not always follow logic.  She also commits a fallacy by making a hasty generalization that all Mexican immigrants want to join a gang and promote violence.  Again, there has been more than enough evidence that most illegal immigrants don't participate in violent, illegal activity.

She then uses the rest of this commercial to attack Harry Reid on his actions taken for illegal immigration.  Angle does not provide any sources for those accusations.  With the other aspects of this election that I have wrote on, I really feel Sharron Angle does not accurately know enough about the immigration debate to have proper public discourse on the matter.  Hopefully the voters in Nevada recognize her inconsistencies and unfounded opinions, also.

"Don't Vote" Ad

This ad, which aired in Nevada, is outraging about everyone, especially Latino voters.  The ad starts off in Spanish, and then it progresses, in English, to tell voters to send a message to the Democrats (does not spell out Democrats, but implies it through pictures) by not voting in the election this year.  The narrator explains that the politicians failed on immigration reform, so voters should send them a strong message by not voting.

Obviously, there is some clear ulterior motives behind this campaign.  Right now the election between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle is almost a tie, and with encouraging Latino voters not to vote this year, the person sponsoring this ad wants Harry Reid to lose the votes.  Although this ad is not approved by Sharron Angle, it definitely works towards her advantage because she has made it quite clear in her earlier ad campaigns that she does not support immigration in almost any fashion.  Hopefully, Latino voters do not buy into the message in this ad because that would be a shame.  They have a right to vote, like every other American citizen.

Providing a Different "Angle"

In responding to her political ad slamming Harry Reid on immigration, Sharron Angle met with Hispanic High School students to downplay her beliefs.  Her attempts appeared to hurt her more than help, though.  In answering a student's question on why she used Latinos to represent illegal immigrants, Sharron Angle merely responded that the immigrants do not look exactly Hispanic to her.   She even hurt her credibility more by saying some of the Hispanic students in the audience look more Asian than Latino.

I will admit I was not the biggest Sharron Angle fan before this, but I found her responses offensive and unthoughtful.  I think it was an appropriate time to perhaps admit she did single out Hispanics in her ad, but she meant no harm in it because her focus is on illegal immigration, not race.  Instead, I feel she has alienated not only a Hispanic voter base, but an Asian voter base, too.  The best lesson to take out of this is that immigration should not be narrowed down to race because when that happens, it is a step backwards, not forwards.

Here Come the Outsiders

Out-of-staters fuel fight over Arizona immigration law

Today The Christian Science Monitor featured an article explaining how SB 1070 has drawn many out-of-state people to visit Arizona in support of bill.  Loudres Medrano, the author, uses quite a few examples of people making the trip.  One guy, Timothy Mellon, did not make the trip, but he contributed $1.5 million to help offset the legal fees this bill has caused.  Medrano also considers how Arizonans feel by the out-of-state people by interviewing Marshall Trimble, our state's historian.  Trimble feels it is a mix of outsiders trying to influence the Arizona system, but it is also people coming here because they feel immigration is an American issue.  Tea Party activists have also flocked Arizona to provide support for SB 1070.  Lastly, the article interviews a hotel owner in Phoenix, who says he is just recovering from all the cancelled hotel reservations in boycott of the bill.

I admire that this article takes different approaches on the issue.  When I originally saw the title, I thought it was only going to explain this through an out-of-state person's point-of-view.  I especially thought it was interesting to interview our state historian on the issue.  I believe he was very fair in his approach.  These people may seem as outsiders, but it is important to understand that immigration reform is truly an American issue, not just Arizonan.  

Susan Bolton Is Back at It Again

It has just come out that Susan Bolton has accepted the ACLU and other non-profit organizations' lawsuit of SB1070.    Jan Brewer and Sheriff Joe did not want Bolton to let this case go through, but Bolton ultimately decided to hear the case after dismissing certain aspects of the lawsuit.  She did so because some parts were already addressed with the ruling with the U.S. Justice Department's case.

It will be interesting to see if Susan Bolton reconsiders any of the choices she made during the first lawsuit by the federal government.  There has been more analysis since the law has gone into affect, and I wonder if these figures will sway Bolton in making a different decision.  It will also be intriguing to see if the ACLU and the nonprofits bring forth some new evidence or claim in their argument.  Overall, I wouldn't be surprised to see more changes with SB1070.

Does this Editorial Hold Some Truth?

In an editorial entitled "Illegal-immigration debate in not about prejudice", Susan D. Ree tries to prove a point that people against illegal immigration are not prejudice.  She attempts to support this by sharing her experiences in other countries, and she also tries to establish some credibility through her childhood experiences.  Her main point is that prejudice and illegal immigration are not relatable because they are different concepts.

Although I can believe she does not hold prejudices with illegal immigrants, I find it a fallacy to conclude all anti illegal immigration people do not hold racial judgments, too.   As shown in this class, history can prove that many people did have racial prejudices with immigrants, and I would find it hard to believe that this has suddenly changed with this issue.

Now Muslims Are Taking Over?

I remember in class we watched a political ad featuring Sharron Angle criticizing illegal immigrants (she only showed Hispanics in her ad, by the way), but now it looks like she has moved on to attack another immigrant group in this country--Muslims.  In a recent Tea Party demonstration in Nevada, she claimed that not only was this group is a problem, but that they are trying to have Sharia Law overrule constitutional law.  Basically, she believes that Muslims are taking over this country.  Sound familiar?  This happened with the Italians, the Irish, the Germans, the Chinese, and the Hispanics (which is obviously still an argument, too).

With the recent debates around the mosque around Ground Zero and the elections coming up, I am not surprised that Angle took this angle (pun intended) on this issue.  In looking at this poll from Gallup.com, it is easy to see why she would use this political topic to her advantage:

Although much of these worries surrounding Islam and its influence on American society are unfounded and overstated, I unfortunately do not see people changing their beliefs anytime soon when we have people, like Angle, that use this fear to their political advantage.

Lou Dobbs: The Hypocrite?

A magazine ripped Lou Dobbs for hiring illegals at his own house.  As many people know, Lou Dobbs has been a staunch critic on the issue of illegal immigration.  Isabel McDonald, the author of this article featured in The Nation, claims that Lou Dobbs has hired contractors that have been known to hire illegal immigrants.  She further goes into how Dobbs "has relied for years on undocumented labor for the upkeep of his multimillion-dollar estates and the horses he keeps for his 22-year-old daughter, Hillary, a champion show jumper."  Dobbs has of course publicly denied these claims the articles have made.  He has said that all his workers on the stables are 100% legal.  Since the actual article in The Nation does use irrelevant remarks about his daughter being a champion show jumper, I think it hurts the credibility of McDonald's claims.

Even if these accusations are true , I think it shows that even critics of undocumented workers cannot truly escape the influence of illegal immigration.  With this and Meg Whitman's houseworker, it demonstrates that there is possibly a need for these types of workers to fill jobs that Americans will not.  I know that opens room for numerous debates, but the important aspect to obtain out of this information is that something in the system needs to be fixed.

Glenn Beck: The Expert on Immigration?

In this video he gives a timeline of illegal immigration in the US.  He starts with mentioning an article written in 1890 in the L.A. Times.  To check his mention of the article, I tried googling to see if that article would show up.  The first item displayed led me right back to Glenn Beck, so I question the validity of this piece he uses.  The search certainly does not prove that he lied, but it certainly does not help his credibility, either.

Another aspect I found interesting was that he mentioned Operation Wetback.  He goes on for a few seconds about this initiative to deport illegal immigrants out of this country, but I find it quite humorous that he never mentions the Bracero Program along with this part.  The Bracero Program brought many of these deported workers into the country legally to help hold agricultural jobs.  He also fails to attribute all the negative actions that took place with these immigrant workers.  Glenn Beck only mentions the consequence of this program--Operation Wetback.

Generally, Glenn Beck took his typical one-sided approach to this history, and he could benefit picking up any book that dealt with the history of immigration.  Then he might produce more factual videos...but I have feeling he does not want to.

Where Immigration Legislation Stands Now

I thought this article in Politico really summarized where immigration legislation stands right now in Congress.  The key issues discussed in here is Menendez and his push for more bi-partisanship legislation dealing with immigration.  Another key aspect of the piece is the Republican's reaction to Menendez's push.  Check out the article here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42856.html
I just found reading all these updates in this article intriguing because of our discussion of modern immigration in class and what Tichenor discusses in his book.  I know immigration in this country has not relatively changed since 1965 with the Immigration and Control Act.  This article made me question if we are possibly heading for a change in contemporary immigration politics.  With the tough elections ahead and the lack of bi-partisanship, I know it will be difficult to see major changes, but one can hope.

Immigration Political Cartoons

I think one of the best ways to evaluate a current political situation is to look at political cartoons.  When I searched on Yahoo I found this cartoon:

I think the best aspect surrounding this cartoon is that it brings a historical context in.  This really ties into immigration history that Tichner describes in his book.  Consideration of history and its patterns are key into understanding what is happening with immigration currently, and it also helps predict what might happen next.

The Recession and Immigration Policy

While reading Daniel Tichenor's book, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America, I found it interesting how he related international crises to more restrictive immigration policies.  In describing this, Tichenor states, "When international crises produce isolationist responses in domestic politics, then, we should expect that the political and structural capacities of political actors advancing immigration restriction will be enhanced" (p. 44).  Although Tichenor published this book in 2002, I still find his evaluation of this pattern still evident in today's politics.  The world has been suffering an economic crisis, and in turn, we have seen political players, such as Jan Brewer, Joe Apairo, and the Tea Party moving towards a more isolationist policy regarding illegal immigration.  There have been arguments from many different political actors that the immigrants crossing the United State's border take jobs from those who are currently unemployed.  I think Tichenor's point is important to understand when analyzing policy changes, such as SB 1070, because it helps better explain why these changes could be happening.

Where Americans Stand

Since we were discussing how attitudes towards immigration have fluctuated in class this week, I thought I would go to Gallup Polls and see if they had a poll on attitude towards immigration (of course they had one.)  Here was the poll they conducted:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/122057/Americans-Return-Tougher-Immigration-Stance.aspx

I found it intriguing of the spike in percentages of people that want to see immigration decreased.  As shown above, only 39% of people wanted to see discrimination decreased in the middle of 2008, as compared to the middle of 2009, which was 50%.  I was disappointed that this poll did not continue into 2010 because it would have been interesting to compare those numbers with the midterm elections and SB 1070.  Despite that, it would be interesting to research if those numbers correlated with the recession.  The poll went further into breaking those numbers down into political parties and such, but overall I think this poll demonstrates that immigration is a rising concern for Americans right now.