Politico article on White House-Senate immigration agreement quoted only Republicans
In his May 18 "Political Playbook", discussing reactions to the May 17 agreement between the White House and a bipartisan group of senators on comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration law, Politico chief political writer Mike Allen cited Bush administration sources and the three leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination but failed to quote a single Democratic source, even though several prominent Democratic leaders had already commented on the deal.
Allen quoted two Bush administration sources in support of the agreement: a document released by the White House Communications Office titled "Fact Sheet: Border Security and Immigration Reform," and Joel Kaplan, White House deputy chief of staff for policy. He also cited statements from the three leading contenders for the Republican presidential nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain (AZ), and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Allen described Romney as not being "one of those people" whom Kaplan claims will "think [the agreement] is a good product and support it." Allen characterized McCain as "taking ownership" of the deal, and asserted that Giuliani "left his options open, not wanting to use news reports to make a decision on a bill that could run more than 1,000 pages."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and two leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination all issued statements May 17 reacting to the immigration accord, but none was included in Allen's article.
From Pelosi's statement:
"As the Senate begins its work, they must pass a strong bill that honors these principles that we all agree on, and upholds the American immigrant tradition. While the bipartisan Senate agreement starts the process, I have serious concerns about some elements of this proposal -- the bill must be improved in the Senate. We look forward to working with the Senate on passing a strong comprehensive bill."
From Reid's statement:
"I applaud the hard work of the bipartisan group of Senators who have proposed a new approach to comprehensive immigration reform. Their agreement can serve as a starting point for the Senate debate next week. I have serious concerns about some aspects of this proposal, including the structure of the temporary worker program and undue limitations on family immigration. We need to improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process.
"Comprehensive immigration reform needs to be tough, fair and practical. We need to enhance border security, toughen workplace enforcement, bring 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and reunite families. We must also have a workable program for new workers to come and help meet the needs of our economy and improve the fabric of our society."
From Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (NY) statement:
"This afternoon, a bipartisan group of Senators, who have been working closely in conjunction with the Administration, announced that they had reached an agreement on a comprehensive approach for reforming our broken immigration system.
As I have long maintained, comprehensive immigration reform must have as essential ingredients a strengthening of our borders, greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement of our laws, federal assistance to our state and local governments, strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers, and a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar. In particular, we must also ensure that any bill protects the sanctity of families and does not lead to the creation of a new underclass in our country.
I will scrutinize carefully the proposed compromise to see if it honors our nation's principles and proud immigrant heritage while also respecting the rule of law."
From Sen. Barack Obama's (IL) statement:
"Over the past two years, I have worked hard for a comprehensive immigration bill that would provide strong border security, create a new employment verification system, rationalize our immigration quotas, and bring the 12 million undocumented immigrants out of hiding and put them on an earned path to citizenship. We need this reform now."
"I applaud the Senate leadership, as well as the bipartisan group of Senators who negotiated this deal, for moving the legislative process forward. Over the past few months, much hard work has been done behind closed doors to reach agreement on how to fix our immigration system while staying true to our values. But I believe more work needs to be done."
"Without modifications, the proposed bill could devalue the importance of family reunification, replace the current group of undocumented immigrants with a new undocumented population consisting of guestworkers who will overstay their visas, and potentially drive down wages of American workers. We may need a new worker visa to bring in people at all levels of our economy, but these workers should not be forced out of our country or into hiding after two or three years if they prove themselves worthy of an opportunity to stay and join the American family. These and other problems with the proposed deal should be substantially modified."
"We need to fix our immigration system, but we should not replace one dysfunctional, broken system with another equally troubled system. So, I will work to improve any bill that comes to the floor of the Senate, and I hope to be able to support a final bill at the end of the legislative process."
Leave it to the politicians to come up with this horrible bill that pisses everybody off. The illegals and their supporters say they don't have $5000 to pay, it's unfair, they want amnesty now. The anti illegals say it rewards lawbreaking and our country will not only give amnesty to them but their families as well.
Let's hope this bill dies a quick death, Bush and all the supporters of this bill should be ashamed. It's nothing but a slap in the face to those who have entered this country legally, and those waiting to do so.
I can only agree - so now people can BUY their citizenship?
Exactly, they call it a "fine"........and Kyl from Arizona was on TV last night saying these illegals were getting like probation, paying a fine and being on "probation" - so it's not really amnesty. How idiotic is that? If someone robs a bank and gets probation, do they get the money they stole once their probation is up?
we'll agree this time. all these false phrases about "reform", the "undocumented", they're all meant to frame the debate before it begins.
this is just nothing but the same sham that we went through in 1986. that was supposedly a one time amnesty. there will be talk of securing the border and employer sanctions and nothing will happen. then in 10 years we will have another "reform".
Exactly, it's just to pacify the people.......hopefully it won't work this time.
This bill does nothing to stop the abuse that the Immigrants face when entering this country with terrible working conditions, homeless conditions and bigotry.
If I entered a country illegally and were faced with terrible working conditions, homelessness and bigotry - maybe I'd stay home.
thank you. I don't support bigotry anywhere, and if you showed me the right economic support package for Mexico, I might sign off on it - but it galls me when people complain about the poor treatment they received WHILE COMMITTING A CRIME!!!
try it another way - a man breaks into your house and you catch him at it... a fistfight ensues, and you give him a black eye. Do his complaints about your "mistreatment" of his eye have any validity? Maybe the guy was stealing to feed his hungry family - maybe he tried to get a job and couldn't - in that case, I feel bad for his family, and for him. But not for his black eye.
Yes they are illegal but big business in this country is immoral when dealing with the problem.
The only real problem with this bill is that it allows 400,000 "guest workers" in, legally, to form a low-wage base for employers.
A wall isn't going to work. It's just for votes in Republicanland, and it will be as effective as the Berlin Wall, the Israeli-Palestinian wall, the Great Wall of China, and all other stupid walls like this: a huge waste of money, whether it's visitble from space or not.
The only thing that will work? Penalizing employers who hire illegals, whenever or wherever they are found, and the simultaneous raising of minimum wage. If you don't hire illegals, you pay $10 an hour. If you're found with illegals, you pay $12.50 an hour.
The anti-Mexican movement is a bunch of disgusting voles. First, they went after the schooling and health care of the children, instead of the employers. Then they want a wall, and shoot-to-kill, and felon status for the immigrants. No talk of the root problem: the Reagan movement's destruction of unions. There were some illegals before that; mostly in the agriculture industry. Cesar Chavez gave a way of fixing that, but employers, empowered by Ronnie Reagan the Guv, allowed them, time after time, to hire illegals and the unorganized, because he hated unions more than he hated lawbreaking. Conservatives? Wipe up your mess. The illegals are your blowback, for doing everything in your power to destroy unions, so we can now go to our factory nation, the former Red China, and screw our workers royally.
I agree, I am against the guest worker program for it creates a permanent underclass in our society. Sort of like indentured servants......it's a ridiculous concept endorsed by companies who want cheap labor.
you're just really identified what is wrong with our whole immigration policy. temporary workers or not, immigration legal and illegal, is for the benefit of business, while the taxpayers pick up the tab of the infrastructure costs of an expanding population. the costs of concrete and steel have soared because of competition from countries like inda and china. many of the pro immigration groups are already complaining because there is not enough emphasis on family reunification, but it still provides for spouses and minor children of amnestied citizens to come here. california basically is playing a constant catch-up on things like schools and roads and it's mainly because of immigration. and no sane people want shoot to kill orders. that's an attempt to steer the conversation from the real issues. and people who do not want immigration controlled always claim it's futile to secure the border. that's untrue. and your examples of the berlin wall and the israeli wall actually undermine your argument. the berlin wall, although it's purpose was different and not the same situation, did what it was meant to do. and the wall in israel has all but stopped the suicide bombers that were all but a daily feature of life there for a period.
currently close to a million people a year get permanent residency in this country. in 1972 the rockefeller commission on population growth said: "the commission recommends that the nation welcome and plan for a stablized population." that same year a commission headed by father theodore hesburgh, president of notre dame, addressed immigration and population growth: "after two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the nation's population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population would contribute significantly to the nation's ability to solve it's problems." our population in 1972 was 205 million. it's now 300 million plus.
this is from the website of treehugger.com: "each u.s. car requires nearly one fifth of an acre of paved land for roads and parking spaces." "in 1982, the average motorist experienced 16 hours of delay. by 2003 this had tripled to 47 hours." so an expanding population, the majority of which can be attributed to direct immigration and the higher birth rates of immigrants, affects many parts of our daily lives. and long term problems, such as energy independence, become that much harder to achieve. people who talk about the problems exacerbated by immigration, but say they have no issue with anyone who comes here legally, are talking out of both sides of their mouth. it was only last october that we passed the 300 million mark. the census bureau clock listed our population this morning at 301,884,332. almost 2 million people in 7 months?
Amen! Amen! Amen! If there weren't a ready market for cheap, compliant labor in this country, and employers weren't willing to hire illegal immigrants to satisfy that demand, there would be no problem with illegal immigration. Those folks come here because of the prospect of making a better living for themselves and thier families. Take away that incentive and they have virtually nothing to gain by being here. Why is it that all of the raging free-market worshippers on the right are so blind to the reality that this is primarily an economic, not a social issue? Seems the right-wing has a penchant for reducing everything to profit and loss, except when doing so undermines their current talking points.
I'd love to hear what every one of our lawmakers have to say so I can call the offices of those backing this sham of a bill.
Pat Buchanan was right on when he said [I'll paraphrase] : This is the beginning of the end of the USA as we know it.
Once again the will of the American people is being ignored by those we elected to represent us.
Nova Scotia is looking better every day....
This item is actually about the quoting of only Republicans on the issue, but that may have just been an oversight.
I'm sure if anybody wants the Dems take on it, we can just wait until the next GOP "debate", when Rudy or one of the others will tell us what their opponents said.
hmmm.....maybe its a page out of the Repubs 'playbook' and there will be a follow up article quoting from the Dems 'playbook'....maybe? um.... >crickets chirping<
I still maintain that if we are going to deal with with problem effectively, we need to create several issue specific bills rather than one gigantic comprehensive bill. One bill that deals with enforcement, one for immigration reform, one for border secuirty, etc.
So many of these issues are too easily conflated which adds difficulty to an already challenging issue.
But again, this has become a monster because of the complete failure of our government to do its job. Disgraceful.
I agree. We need to deal with border enforcement FIRST, in my opinion. Once there is evidence that the politicians are serious about that, then we can move forward in other reforms.
And I also agree with you that this absolutely shows our inefficient and ineffective our government is at the federal level, their ineptness never ceases to amaze me..........and people want national health care in this country, are they crazy?
"Politico article on White House-Senate immigration agreement quoted only Republicans"
It shouldn't matter. The Republicans have sold out on the immigration issue and are just as bad as the Democrats. This bill is shameful and should be killed. If it passes, it will signal the end of the Republican Party.
I wonder do the Republicans even want to win it. Besides all the problems the next President will inherit, god knows what they still have covered up. Maybe there's a feeling that it would be better to get a Dem to share some of the blame, for the long term good of the party. ----- Blame everthing on the new Democratic president and congress.
Boy, opinions have sure changed since I used to post regularly on this topic a few months ago. Where are all the posters calling this opinion racist?
Enlightenment is a good thing.
Hey - I'm as shocked as the next guy to find so much agreement AGAINST this bill here - I mean, I'm a fairly progressive guy, and a lot of the folks on this site make me look downright conservative. I guess it's just a measure of how lousy this bill is, and how befuddled and mismanaged the entire immigration issue has become.
i've been posting here for years. i've always had the same view on immigration. i think that overall it's become a real minus for this country.
I think immigrants have made this country unique and diverse and are a welcome addition, in the land of opportunity. As long as they follow the laws.
Specifically, among all our laws, primarily entering this country legally.
so our present immigration policies, without this amnesty, will bring our population to 400 million plus by 2050. that's a good thing?
I agree our current immigration process is antiquated and out of control......it needs revamping as well. But until we get a handle on the porous borders and the massive influx of illegals, we are helpless.
could you answer what i asked?
I just did, the present immigration policies need to be changed - so your estimates, if unchanged, are troublesome.
ok, but that's not really what you said to begin with. because you said that immigrants, as long as they are legal, are a "welcome addition". i'm saying that is not true. the late senator gaylord nelson, the liberal democrat from wisconsin, was the founder of earth day as we know it. he wanted immigration reduced to a trickle due to it's effect on population growth and the environment. joanne woodward and her hsuband paul newman are known for their support of liberal causes. she is on the board of negative population growth, which supports restricting immigration. i agree with both their stands. just saying that everything is all right as long as immigrants come legally does not change the fact that a population of over 400 million is a bad thing. our present legal levels of immigration are the highest in history on a sustained basis.
Perhaps its that being against illegal immigration is not inherently racist but some of the arguments used are sometimes racist and xenophobic. Perhaps the change has been that this crop of conservative posters are not using the racist xenophobic arguments. I am a liberal that doesnt much like the racist arguments and go after them but havent seen any in these immigration threads.
CNN was using only Republican stormtroopers to report on the immigration agreement and also on the refusal of Bush to sign the war funding bill, thus continuing the ongoing slaughter in Iraq. Guess that huge new super, ultra-fortified Embassy isn't finished yet and the occuptation and phony war will continue and Americans and Iraqis will continue to perish in violent deaths until all of the neocon's building projects are finished. And then watch out, world, it will be the UNITED STATES UBER ALLES!
As I've said before, any proposed "fix" to our immigration and border controls are nothing but Band-Aids on severed limbs.
As long as the huge economic, governmental and social disparities exist between the U.S. and Mexico, people are going to remain determined to cross the border, regardless of what we do to seal it.
Even if we built a fence that's 2,000 miles long, 100 feet high and 50 feet thick, Coyotes will simply retool their business by taking to the sky, sea or subterrain.
I don't have the answers, no one does, but I'm not going to live in denial of the root causes.
Control the borders, control the borders, enforce the borders, enforce the borders. Until the Mexican people step up and demand reform and change in their corruptive system, nothing will happen. We cannot continue to import their poverty just because they want it exported here. We are not responsible for their ills. We have plenty of our own.
As far as responsibility and the ills at home, what about American jobs? We've exported many of them to Mexico, allowing companies to skirt wage, safety and environmental regulation and giving Mexicans even more reasons to leave.
Ever wonder where that brand new GM, Ford or Chrysler car sitting in the showroom is really made?
Mexico needs to step up and create prosperous environment, but the U.S. needs to stop exacerbating the situation.
That is something that I still fail to comprehend.
All the passion, effort, money, marches, boycotts, walkouts that has gone towards changing the policies of the United States is truly impressive. Misguided, but impressive.
Why isn't all of this energy and commitment to social change being directed at their home countries policies, labor issues, etc.? Is it because the US is percieved as being too weakand pliable? Too eager to bend to the will of special interests? That the citizenry will stand mute while the Rule of Law is ignored?
Is it that much easier to foster change in a foreign country than in one's home country? If so, I'd really like to go to Austria and start making some demands. I love that place. >sarcasm< ....sort of, the thought of living there does make me a bit giddy.
I am so afraid that the unwillingness of our elected representatives to take decisive action will just make the problem ten times worse in the future.
Done ranting. Thank you for your time.
the fact is that we are already controlling illegal immigration by sea. the coast guard patrols in the florida straits to control what would otherwise be a constant flow of illegals from haiti and cuba. and to say they would come by air is to ignore the impracticality of that, as compared to just walking across the border. yes, people do overstay their visas, but that can be controlled by simply checking social security numbers. businesses pay just a small fine, the cost of doing business, for their employees having duplicate s.s. numbers.
Just a little info on how screwed up our priorities are in this country, the city of Atlanta just prosecuted a young mother charging her with 17 felonies for sending her child to the wrong school district. Just today the verdict came in. Not guilty because there was no criminal intent. This young black lady is an American Citizen. Georgia has one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country. Think they could have found an illegal to prosecute for lying on official documents.
Tommy, what's your take on my Republican handicap question and your response being deleted? Does this happen much do you know? What triggers it usually? What may have been objected to in my question? Does it go on much on other political sites you know of? Thanks.
Perhaps it was off topic, hence the deletion.
I support this bill if only because it makes people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh get all red and pouty like they're about to burst into tears.
I don't really see anything wrong with an amnesty for illegals if it's handled with some common sense. The people I've met at my church who are "out of status" on their immigration are hardworking and decent. They remind me of my grandparents who were Italian immigrants, who, because of their name, were constantly under threat of deportation because of its association with a famous member of organized crime.
Plus, if all the whining from NRO about this being a suicide bill for the Republican Party are true, I'm all for it. That seems to be Kathy Jean Lopez's main objection to the bill, although she does seem a bit conflicted because so many of the illegals are good Catholics. I guess for a Republican, Party Affiliation trumps Faith every time.
Amnesty for those that have broken the law by entering and remaining in this country illegally is morally wrong. It has nothing to do with the worthiness or the good intentions of those involved......it has everything to do with slapping across the face those that have endured the process legally. What do you tell them?
And if your contempt for one political party trumps the rule of law, that is sad.
"I don't really see anything wrong with an amnesty for illegals if it's handled with some common sense. "
You are a moron. Go live with other 7% of the population who favors no southern border with Mexico. Also, you're probably never met anyone who went through the process of legal immigration with an H1-B visa.
"The people I've met at my church who are "out of status" on their immigration are hardworking and decent. "
They also broke our laws by entering the country legally and probably don't pay federal income taxes or might have used someone's social security number to gain employment. But as long as they're "hardworking" and "decent" that's all that matters.
Finally, your viewpoint is ridiculous because you support this bill based on politics alone. Not because of any intellectual understanding of the issue or any heartfelt beliefs. But purely based on scoring political points...typical liberal.
"They also broke our laws by entering the country legally "
should read "They also broke our laws by entering the country ILLEGALLY"
Same deal with NPR.
I'm so tired of hearing their legal correspondents ONLY quoting Spector as if he were still the chair.
The thing that concerns me about any sort of immigration law reform is that every few years they re-invent the same laws. Each time they work in amnesty and gravy parts for the illegal aliens. They are always quick to hand out the amnesty and gravy parts but they never do get around to the enforcement parts of the laws.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Do they really need a shiny new set of laws when they have never given the old comprehensive laws a test drive?
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/051101_nd.htm
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Notices of intent to fine employers:
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
1997: 865
1999: 417
2000: 178
2001: 100
2003: 162
2004: 3
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Worksite arrests of illegal alien workers:
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
1997: 17,554
1999: 2,849
2000: 953
2001: 735
2003: 445
2004: 15990% of the comments posted about this MMFA article have been worthless. This article is about the media quoting only Republicans in a bipartisan issue. This is about right-wing bias in the media, yet most of you have written a speech about how good or bad this bill is. It doesn't matter if the bill sucks or is wonderful. Attack Mike Allen for being a mediocre journalist.
Focus.
Sir, yes, sir ! How dare we get off topic !
After neglecting to report any of the comments by Democrats. The next step is to ask why Democrats are not stepping up and commenting.