Immigration-- Fair tradeoff?

[Costanza]

I think it is extremely distasteful to hold out citizenship as a reward for becoming cannon fodder.

Yes, they also can attend college for two years but a lot of these people have no realistic shot at that.

I thought ours was supposed to be a citizen army, anyway? This seems closer to a mercenary army.

Democrats pivot on immigration
By: Carrie Budoff Brown
September 14, 2010 03:51 PM EDT

In a strategy shift on immigration reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced Tuesday that Democrats will try to pass a bill legalizing the status of young, undocumented immigrants if they attend college for two years or join the military.

Reid will offer the DREAM Act as an amendment next week to the Defense Department authorization bill – thrusting the thorny, contentious issue of immigration reform back into the spotlight as Democrats struggle to blunt a Republican surge ahead of the November midterm elections.

“I think it is really important that we move forward on this legislation,” Reid said. “I know we can’t do comprehensive immigration reform. I’ve tried to; I’ve tried so very, very hard. I’ve tried different iterations of this, but those Republicans we had in the last Congress left us.”

The DREAM Act provides a path to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants if they were in the United States before age 16, and if they have been residents for five years before enactment of the law. Reid could not say whether he has 60 votes to overcome a filibuster but added, “I sure hope so.”

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Democrats would make the defense authorization bill “needlessly controversial” if they added the DREAM Act.

Democrats need some Republican votes, yet it's unclear if any will step forward. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a Republican co-sponsor, has not yet indicated whether he supports adding the DREAM Act as an amendment to the defense bill, his spokesman said Tuesday. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a target for Democrats, will not make a decision until he reviews the bill language, his spokesman said.

And Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who has co-sponsored the legislation in the past, will not vote for the DREAM Act next week, in part because he doesn't believe it's appropriate to add the measure to a defense bill.

“Senator Hatch doesn’t support cynical political stunts," spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier said in a statement. "This defense bill shouldn’t be held hostage to unrelated measures that have no chance of becoming law. He believes we need to keep working to regain the American people’s trust by securing the borders."

Nevertheless, the political calculation is clear: Democrats want to energize Hispanic voters, who have soured on President Barack Obama for failing to produce an immigration reform bill during his first year in office as promised. Reid has also wagered heavily on Hispanics turning out for him in his tough reelection fight against Sharron Angle, his Tea Party-backed Republican challenger

At the same time, however, making the DREAM act a priority would boost immigration to the top of the agenda, at a time when angry voters want something done about the shaky economy. The tough new Arizona law intended to stop illegal immigration by forcing suspects to show proof of legal residency — and the Obama administration’s decision to block it in court — has become a rallying cry for voters disenchanted with the direction of the country.

In an interview last week, Obama told the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion that he supports the DREAM Act, and would take his cue from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on whether it should move separately from a comprehensive immigration reform bill. But he raised concerns that would imperil the broader strategy of a more sweeping overhaul.

“I just don’t want anybody to think that if we somehow just do the DREAM Act, that that solves the problem,” Obama said. “We’ve got a bigger problem that we have to solve. We still need comprehensive immigration reform. The DREAM Act can be an important part of that, and, as I said, I’m a big supporter of that. But I also want to make sure that we don’t somehow give up on the bigger strategy.”

Supporters of the bill say young people who were children when their parents entered the U.S. illegally should be allowed to contribute to the only country they have known by attending college or joining the military. “Kids who grew up as Americans should be able to get their green card to go to college or serve in the military,” Reid said.

But opponents say the proposal is a back-door amnesty program that could entice more families to cross the border illegally.

There has been division within the Hispanic advocacy community over whether it made strategic sense to push the DREAM Act apart from a larger immigration overhaul. The proposal has drawn Republican support before, and could attract more GOP lawmakers to support larger reforms.

But the prospects for immigration reform have become increasingly bleak in recent months, leading advocates to lobby Democrats hard to pass the DREAM Act as a “down payment” on more expansive changes. The proposal had long been part of the immigration reform bill, which stalled in Congress and faces an uncertain fate after the midterm elections.

"It is time to pass this important stepping stone to comprehensive immigration reform and we commend Senator Reid for bringing this forward for a vote," Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said in a statement.

Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, criticized the move, saying Reid was motivated more by politics than good policy.

"It seems obvious that the only reason why he has decided to act now on the Dream Act is because he is in a dead heat with his political opponent in his bid for reelection and desperately needs to win back Latino voters," Aguilar said. "While we support the Dream Act and hope that the Senate passes this important measure, it would have been much better to consider it as part of a broader discussion on immigration reform and certainly not in a divisive election year. But, then again, Reid is not looking to do what is right on this issue, but what is politically expedient.”


POLITICO reported Tuesday that advocates for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country could see as many as 17 seats change hands if Republicans retake Congress; senators who want a pathway to citizenship would almost certainly be replaced by those favoring a get-tough, law-and-order approach. In all cases, the Republicans running for the seats in play have vowed to fight any legalization program, at least until the U.S.-Mexico border has been certified secure.

This means the Democratic vision of immigration reform – which couples stricter border enforcement and a crackdown on employers who hire undocumented workers with a means to citizenship for the immigrants already here – would need to shift much further to the right to stand any chance in a closely divided Senate.

In the interview with La Opinion, Obama defended his administration’s handling of immigration reform. He said it stalled because the health care reform legislation took longer than expected, and Democrats lost their 60th vote when Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts won the Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy, a liberal Democrat and an influential immigration reform advocate.

“I think that in some ways there is an unrealistic notion of what I can get done by myself,” Obama said. “The thinking seems to be that if I make a speech and if I am absolutely persuaded — or persuasive – that somehow the Republican leadership in the Senate is going to change their mind and they’re going to say, ‘You know what? The president is right and we should have done this all along.’ And that’s just not how things work.”

Obama also expressed frustration with the Hispanic press — and the Hispanic community at large — for criticizing his lack of progress on immigration.

“I know that within the Latino press, at least, there’s been this constant commentary, 'Well, he had 60 votes for health care, why couldn’t he get 60 votes for immigration reform?’” Obama said. “And I just want to remind everybody: actually, after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, I only had 59 votes. I didn’t have 60. I had 59 votes for health care. The only reason that we were able to get that passed was we had already had a vote in the Senate just barely to get it done; just barely were we able to get it done.”

Later in the interview, he added: “The only thing that I just ask is that within the community, people understand I can’t snap my fingers and make this happen. And so I think what has been interesting is the degree to which people have expressed frustration for me, somebody who supports comprehensive immigration reform, and less criticism sometimes of the people who oppose immigration reform. That doesn’t make sense. I am as strong an ally as anybody has ever been in this Oval Office when it comes to solving this problem.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42153.html

 

[QueEx]

I think it is extremely distasteful to hold out citizenship as a reward for becoming cannon fodder.

Yes, they also can attend college for two years but a lot of these people have no realistic shot at that.

I thought ours was supposed to be a citizen army, anyway? This seems closer to a mercenary army.

I disagree with your characterization as "citizenship reward" for being "cannon fodder". I served this country and personally I believe that it would not be distasteful for those seeking citizenship to commit no less the sacrifice that I, a citizen, committed.

Of course, this is a "Piece Meal" attempt at immigration reform, probably aimed at helping Harry Reid's senate race in Nevada. Without counting its likely supporters, it probably has little chance of passage -- leaving Reid with the ability to say, I tried and the Republicans blocked it.

My objection with this measure, however, would be with allowing massive numbers of non-citizens into the military whose ONLY purpose is an attempt to gain citizenship. I don't know that I would feel very comfortable side-by-side with someone whose loyalties might be elsewhere.

BTW, I know that non-citizens, under certain conditions, are allowed to enlist. The difference here, however, might be the sheer number of such persons that might be allowed to serve at any one time.

QueEx

 

[Costanza]

I disagree with your characterization as "citizenship reward" for being "cannon fodder". I served this country and personally I believe that it would not be distasteful for those seeking citizenship to commit no less the sacrifice that I, a citizen, committed.

Of course, this is a "Piece Meal" attempt at immigration reform, probably aimed at helping Harry Reid's senate race in Nevada. Without counting its likely supporters, it probably has little chance of passage -- leaving Reid with the ability to say, I tried and the Republicans blocked it.

My objection with this measure, however, would be with allowing massive numbers of non-citizens into the military whose ONLY purpose is an attempt to gain citizenship. I don't know that I would feel very comfortable side-by-side with someone whose loyalties might be elsewhere.

BTW, I know that non-citizens, under certain conditions, are allowed to enlist. The difference here, however, might be the sheer number of such persons that might be allowed to serve at any one time.

QueEx

Most people in the armed forces are serving themselves, not their country.

They bribe poorer people with a college education that should be free in a country as rich as this one has been as well as the numerous other financial and career opportunities available to the uneducated. More are asking what their country can do for them rather than what they can do for their country.

Most spout that self-serving rhetoric but will freely admit their true motivation when asked.

I'm not even sure what part of my statement you're taking issue with. Obviously the phrase cannon fodder is horribly outdated-- I had to laugh when I really thought about that-- and there are plenty of jobs in the military that don't put you at high risk of death, though I doubt those will be largely filled by illegal Mexicans.

Your objection echoes Machiavelli's critique of mercenary armies. If you can't get your own citizens to fight, you're probably picking the wrong battles. And the level of commitment is certainly questionable.

But I'd argue that we already have a mercenary army. This just takes it a small step forward.

 

[QueEx]

Most people in the armed forces are serving themselves, not their country.

I use that term, "most people", sometimes too -- though I would be the first to admit, I haven't interviewed or otherwise polled "most" and I don't have the benefit of Miss Cleo's crystal ball.

I do know, however, that even if "most" are serving themselves, there is, I would venture to say, for "most", a common thread among them: they are citizens of this country with a vested interest in protecting the emoluments of and that bundle of rights inherent in and concomitant with that citizenship. Most don't want some outsider to bomb the things they've bought or the things they hope to buy with the proceeds from their military service.

They bribe poorer people with a college education . . .

I'm willing to bet that your "most" would disagree with your "bribery" characterization. Incentive? - perhaps. I volunteered. I wasn't bribed. The education benefits were an incidental benefit to me. I wanted to see the world. I didn't see it all, but I did see a good bit of it; and it enriched my life.

They bribe poorer people with a college education that should be free in a country as rich as this one . . .

I agree. Education should be free. But somebody always pays for what somebody else describes as, free.

More are asking what their country can do for them rather than what they can do for their country.

I've noticed. And, I've noticed how More are asking for someone else to provide for them what they refuse to seek to provide, for themselves. sabe?

I'm not even sure what part of my statement you're taking issue with.


Your objection echoes Machiavelli's critique of mercenary armies. If you can't get your own citizens to fight, you're probably picking the wrong battles. And the level of commitment is certainly questionable.

If you didn't know, you could have asked. But if you had read, perhaps, you would have known. It wasn't exactly elusive when I started with, "I disagree with your characterization as "citizenship reward" for being "cannon fodder".


QueEx

 

[Costanza]

I use that term, "most people", sometimes too -- though I would be the first to admit, I haven't interviewed or otherwise polled "most" and I don't have the benefit of Miss Cleo's crystal ball.

Of course, I haven't commissioned a poll on the subject. I've just had enough conversations with military folks that I feel comfortable making the statement-- a representative enough of a sample, if you will, with a great majority expressing that sentiment.

I do know, however, that even if "most" are serving themselves, there is, I would venture to say, for "most", a common thread among them: they are citizens of this country with a vested interest in protecting the emoluments of and that bundle of rights inherent in and concomitant with that citizenship. Most don't want some outsider to bomb the things they've bought or the things they hope to buy with the proceeds from their military service.

I always take issue with the idea that servicemen and women are "fighting for our freedom" because we usually fight wars where our freedom is not at stake.

I think your point here is valid and that underlying sentiment does exist, though.

A Mexican non-citizen raised here or who has lived here for five years or more would have the same level of commitment, I would think. They are doing it primarily for themselves but will buy into the self-serving and ego-boosting rhetoric about the purpose of their mission. They have families and property here, too.

I'm willing to bet that your "most" would disagree with your "bribery" characterization. Incentive? - perhaps. I volunteered. I wasn't bribed. The education benefits were an incidental benefit to me. I wanted to see the world. I didn't see it all, but I did see a good bit of it; and it enriched my life.

Fair point.

I agree that "my 'most'" would disagree. It has been my experience in having these conversations. People who are used to being told they are heroes don't like being told that they're selfishly motivated, simply doing the best they can for themselves like anyone else and usually lacking better options.

What branch were you in? We can get into why you joined if it is not too personal for your taste. I think it wouldn't be going too far to ask what you would describe as your primary motivations and what your hierarchy of needs, desires and beliefs were that compelled you to join.

I agree. Education should be free. But somebody always pays for what somebody else describes as, free.

I view it as a collective issue. We all pay for it (obviously with differing contributions) and we all reap the benefits. Rich people need doctors and engineers, too; of all the burdens citizens are asked to endure, this should be among the very least controversial.

I've noticed. And, I've noticed how More are asking for someone else to provide for them what they refuse to seek to provide, for themselves. sabe?

Such as?

If you didn't know, you could have asked. But if you had read, perhaps, you would have known. It wasn't exactly elusive when I started with, "I disagree with your characterization as "citizenship reward" for being "cannon fodder".


QueEx

Saying I didn't know was my way of asking. And, of course, I read your post. I think it would be evident from reading my reply that I didn't just miss the first sentence. I even elaborated on what I saw as the only possible problems with what I wrote-- "Obviously the phrase cannon fodder is horribly outdated-- I had to laugh when I really thought about that-- and there are plenty of jobs in the military that don't put you at high risk of death, though I doubt those will be largely filled by illegal Mexicans."

That first sentence of your still does not make sense to me (meaning I see no basis for your disagreement, if I was not clear enough before). What exactly are you taking issue with? My "characterization" seems beyond dispute excepting the outdated language and the fact that every single person who joins will not have their life in jeopardy. It is definitely a citizenship reward being offered for service and that service will often involve gambling with one's own life.

 

[QueEx]

I always take issue with the idea that servicemen and women are "fighting for our freedom" because we usually fight wars where our freedom is not at stake.

I think your point here is valid and that underlying sentiment does exist, though.

"They hate our Freedoms" . . . "Fighting for our Freedom" . . . "Phrases of Similar Import" . . . are typically just rallying cries which, in my opinion, are used by their purveyors to invoke a sense of cohesiveness and feelings of ethnocentrism, us against them. Without question, if the "facts and circumstances" behind them are not examined and debated, the messages out front of them can be misleading and the consequences dangerous.

A Mexican non-citizen raised here or who has lived here for five years or more would have the same level of commitment, I would think. They are doing it primarily for themselves but will buy into the self-serving and ego-boosting rhetoric about the purpose of their mission. They have families and property here, too.

You may be right. I don't know what anyone, really thinks. I would simply be concerned with anyone who has another country to retreat to; who claim ownership to large parts of this country against those presently in possession; and whose interest here appear more economic than anything else (for example, the estimated 9 billion earned here and allegedly sent back home annually is not re-circulating in and bulding THIS economy). In general, that tends to signal questionable allegiances. On the other hand, I feel more comfortably assessing people, whether my own (black), my relatives/friends, and anybody else, case-by-case.

What branch were you in? We can get into why you joined if it is not too personal for your taste. I think it wouldn't be going too far to ask what you would describe as your primary motivations and what your hierarchy of needs, desires and beliefs were that compelled you to join.

Navy. My motivation: as I said above, I wanted to see the world and a tour broke out. Actually, I wasn't quite ready for college; the job market was poor -- and, coming out of HS I had no marketable skills; my parents gave me an ultimatum: I could maintain my residence if I went to school <college or trade> or get a job and hit the road, in other words, they would help me to become educated, but I would have to be responsible for me if I chose not to; and, as I looked around, the prospects, i.e., drugs, hustling, ekeing out a subsistence existence, and/or premature death associated therewith -- were all, unappealing.

I view it as a collective issue. We all pay for it (obviously with differing contributions) and we all reap the benefits. Rich people need doctors and engineers, too; of all the burdens citizens are asked to endure, this should be among the very least controversial.

Seriously, when it comes to public assistance, I have mixed feelings. Without question, I believe in the idea of a helping hand, especially when accompanied by the donee's will/desire and serious effort to succeed and escape his/her circumstances. And, I believe it is government's role to promote and foster opportunity. I have problems with those who have the ability to do better who opt to settle for public sources. I am wary, though, of those who point to those needing/receiving assistance as being the source of the nation's problems. I believe that socialism kills the will and promotes mediocrity. I believe that capitalism, unchecked, will do the same, arguably more.

QueEx