Patt
01-16-2011, 09:58 PM
Read the links. Seems Mickey Kaus - yes THAT Mickey Klaus (http://www.bullshit.com/Mickey%20Kaus), the neoliberal - has something to say about Mort Kondracke's opinion piece in Roll Call.
In yet another column calming the waters by accusing opponents of being racists, Morton Kondracke writes (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_67/-202427-1.html) that President George W. Bush's immigration reform " failed by five votes in 2007." That makes it sound as if proponents were just five votes shy of the 60 votes needed to pass anything in the Senate, the way DREAM act supporters were five votes shy of 60 a few weeks ago (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/december-18-2010/analyzing-votes-our-defeat-dream-act-amnesty-senate-today.html). No. In 2007 "comprehensive immigration reform" didn't even win a majority in the Senate. It lost in what the L.A. Times called a "46—53 rout" (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/29/nation/na-immig29)—failing by 14 votes, not five—despite being backed by both the Democratic party and the Republican president ...
P.S.—Note to my ex-colleague Mort: We've now had at least six years of national debate on "comprehensive" reform. It's been a relatively civil argument, as these things go. I think people know what your side's points are and what the opposition's points are. You had Nancy Pelosi and George Bush and Barack Obama and Rupert Murdoch and George Soros and Karl Rove and NPR and Michael Bloomberg and the editorial boards of every major paper, including the NYT and the WSJ, plus the Chamber of Commerce and the Center for American Progress, among others, on your side. You had everyone's eagerness to win over the growing Latino vote. You still lost. Every time. You lost because your side could not answer a simple question: if we pass your bill, how can we be sure it will be the last amnesty, as opposed to one more in a cycle with no end in sight?
Part of civility is supposed to be accepting a democratic verdict even if it goes against you. I've never completely bought that. I wouldn't have been too civil if my side had lost. I don't think civil-rights activists in the 1960s would have been required to avoid heated rhetoric if a fair and square majority had stopped the Civil Rights Act or even preserved de jure segregation. But in this case there is a sensible way forward that will eventually achieve your goals: Enforcement First. Pass an "e-verify" bill to check the status of new employees. Build the border fence. Do something about visa overstays, etc. Then if all these things work we consider legalization ... All your side has to do is give up the dream of a) immediate amnesty and b) recurrent amnesties—in exchange for the likelihood that those who are here now will eventually be allowed to stay legally.
It is with a positively unctuous level of civility that I urge you to think about why you keep losing and consider this promising moderate alternative!
P.P.S.: Kondracke writes that incoming House Judiciary chairman Lamar Smith has indicated he wants to enact mandatory electronic verification of the citizenship of all new employees—a step that might lead to mass firing of undocumented workers. Some pro-immigrant reformers say they could support “mandatory e-verify” if it were accompanied by steps to enable presently undocumented workers to gain legal status.
Nice try at making an amnesty the price of "mandatory e-verify"! But I'm not sure Smith will need the votes of your "pro-immigrant reformers." Nor is it clear how checking on "new employees" will lead to the "mass firing" of existing employees. They're not "new."
... 1:47 a.m.
Mickey makes a valid point. Who says you can't ask a great question at 1:47 a.m.?
In yet another column calming the waters by accusing opponents of being racists, Morton Kondracke writes (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_67/-202427-1.html) that President George W. Bush's immigration reform " failed by five votes in 2007." That makes it sound as if proponents were just five votes shy of the 60 votes needed to pass anything in the Senate, the way DREAM act supporters were five votes shy of 60 a few weeks ago (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/december-18-2010/analyzing-votes-our-defeat-dream-act-amnesty-senate-today.html). No. In 2007 "comprehensive immigration reform" didn't even win a majority in the Senate. It lost in what the L.A. Times called a "46—53 rout" (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/29/nation/na-immig29)—failing by 14 votes, not five—despite being backed by both the Democratic party and the Republican president ...
P.S.—Note to my ex-colleague Mort: We've now had at least six years of national debate on "comprehensive" reform. It's been a relatively civil argument, as these things go. I think people know what your side's points are and what the opposition's points are. You had Nancy Pelosi and George Bush and Barack Obama and Rupert Murdoch and George Soros and Karl Rove and NPR and Michael Bloomberg and the editorial boards of every major paper, including the NYT and the WSJ, plus the Chamber of Commerce and the Center for American Progress, among others, on your side. You had everyone's eagerness to win over the growing Latino vote. You still lost. Every time. You lost because your side could not answer a simple question: if we pass your bill, how can we be sure it will be the last amnesty, as opposed to one more in a cycle with no end in sight?
Part of civility is supposed to be accepting a democratic verdict even if it goes against you. I've never completely bought that. I wouldn't have been too civil if my side had lost. I don't think civil-rights activists in the 1960s would have been required to avoid heated rhetoric if a fair and square majority had stopped the Civil Rights Act or even preserved de jure segregation. But in this case there is a sensible way forward that will eventually achieve your goals: Enforcement First. Pass an "e-verify" bill to check the status of new employees. Build the border fence. Do something about visa overstays, etc. Then if all these things work we consider legalization ... All your side has to do is give up the dream of a) immediate amnesty and b) recurrent amnesties—in exchange for the likelihood that those who are here now will eventually be allowed to stay legally.
It is with a positively unctuous level of civility that I urge you to think about why you keep losing and consider this promising moderate alternative!
P.P.S.: Kondracke writes that incoming House Judiciary chairman Lamar Smith has indicated he wants to enact mandatory electronic verification of the citizenship of all new employees—a step that might lead to mass firing of undocumented workers. Some pro-immigrant reformers say they could support “mandatory e-verify” if it were accompanied by steps to enable presently undocumented workers to gain legal status.
Nice try at making an amnesty the price of "mandatory e-verify"! But I'm not sure Smith will need the votes of your "pro-immigrant reformers." Nor is it clear how checking on "new employees" will lead to the "mass firing" of existing employees. They're not "new."
... 1:47 a.m.
Mickey makes a valid point. Who says you can't ask a great question at 1:47 a.m.?