Back of the Line: Rhetoric or Policy?
To become documented, Salmeron says, "You have to have a lot of money and wait for a process that can take as long as 10 years. For someone living in Mexico, where most of our undocumented workers come from, going through proper channels means working through a corrupt system. If you're watching your family go hungry, you can't sit there and wait. Not when they pay $5 a day where you are, but you can make $50 a day by coming here. These are people with no other alternative. They do what they must."
That's a quote from a Chron article on Jesse Salmeron, a local filmmaker who is putting the finishing touches on a documentary called undocumented, a film on the recent protests against Republican fascism toward immigrant families. The quote provides a description of the failure of the immigration system--that it can take as long as 10 years for someone to become documented.
Yesterday, I listened in shock to a KPFT radio program as I heard what was a mediocre and dangerous proposal by Texas US Senate candidate Barbara Radnofsky--an immigration system with earned legalization that takes as much as 15 to 20 years. I don't know what is more shocking: Making someone wait longer than they do now after paying taxes, pumping money into the economy, and injecting culture into the community; or the failure of federal Democratic candidates to actually discuss the current failures and inhumane backlog of cases at the Citizenship and Immigration Services agency. We know why Republicans won't point to their failure to fix the immigration system, why won't the Democrats point to it?
Of course, the apologist Democrat in us will say that Radnofsky is only trying to appease the voters in the "center" by "talking tough." It's about time Democrats started taking a humane tone to the immigration issue. This "get to the back of the line" rhetoric comes from the Republican Party, but what they don't realize is that people are being told to get to the back of a line that simply does not move. What's the incentive? (This is the same question Radnofsky asked of Hutchison's self-deportation plan.)
Radnofsky's proposal of forcing people to jump through more hoops than they are forced to do so now (and there are pretty strong security and background hoops now) is a proposal that just won't work. And throwing the "A" (amnesty) word around to describe Kay Bailey Hutchison's recent proposal of self-deportation, well, given the choice of checking-in back in their country and finishing up the process as part of the current backlog within 10 or 11 years or having to wait 15 to 20 years, perhaps she's giving people a more practical choice--supporting what seems like a more "expedited," yet risky proposal by Hutchison. Is throwing the "A" word around simply a way to take a slap at the Republican? If so, it doesn't provide an avenue to improve the system--it's just an attempt to get a few votes.
And what about the children of immigrants who came here as babies? Why should they be punished with a 15-20 year wait. I'd like to point out that Democrats have also failed to talk about the DREAM Act which would allow children of immigrants a path to citizenship based on their completion of undergradaute studies. Now that's an incentive! Putting more degreed people into our professional talent pool.
Tough talk has never worked for Democrats, especially when we attempt to talk tougher than the Republicans. During a time in which the Republicans' wrath toward immigrants and Latinos, while they avoid talking about their legislative failures on tax cuts, energy policy, education, and health care, there is no reason for Democrats to take on this issue, unless they are willing to provide proposals that work. More so than ever, it is Republican voters who have been worn out by their own Party-created wedge issue that they are willing to listen to any candidate who provides practical solutions to the rest of the problems we face as a nation.
The question becomes: How long should it take for someone to be deemed worthy to become a Citizen? And are we willing to look at our own worthiness as people born here, yet seldom practicing good citizenship?
With voter turnout expected to be dismal on November 7, it would seem to me that as much as 75% of Texans should lose their Citizenship simply for not voting. So, arbitrarily throwing out a number like 15 to 20 years for people who begin to prove their worthiness to become citizens by simply jumping through physical hoops--like a river, like a deadly desert, like the back of trailer, or like a train--is just impractical and avoids the need for a real solution. That they pay more for rent, for groceries at the corner convenience store, and pump billions into the economy isn't enough? That they take jobs that Americans won't do at any fair-market wage isn't enough? That they face anti-Latino (and not just anti-Immigrant) rhetoric and threats isn't enough?
Talk about jumping through hoops. The solution is getting rid of a backlog at CIS to make that "line" that Republicans want everyone to be at the back of actually flow. Of course, this is a solution for those that actually want a solution.
Considering that she appeared at a progressive radio station like KPFT, she should have made a bold move when asked about the immigration issue: Call it what is is--a Republican-created wedge issue to keep us away from what we should be discussing: Republican failures on security, the war, education, health care, minimum wage, etc.
Latina Lista has more on politicians misusing the immigration issue--on both sides of the aisle.
That's a quote from a Chron article on Jesse Salmeron, a local filmmaker who is putting the finishing touches on a documentary called undocumented, a film on the recent protests against Republican fascism toward immigrant families. The quote provides a description of the failure of the immigration system--that it can take as long as 10 years for someone to become documented.
Yesterday, I listened in shock to a KPFT radio program as I heard what was a mediocre and dangerous proposal by Texas US Senate candidate Barbara Radnofsky--an immigration system with earned legalization that takes as much as 15 to 20 years. I don't know what is more shocking: Making someone wait longer than they do now after paying taxes, pumping money into the economy, and injecting culture into the community; or the failure of federal Democratic candidates to actually discuss the current failures and inhumane backlog of cases at the Citizenship and Immigration Services agency. We know why Republicans won't point to their failure to fix the immigration system, why won't the Democrats point to it?
Of course, the apologist Democrat in us will say that Radnofsky is only trying to appease the voters in the "center" by "talking tough." It's about time Democrats started taking a humane tone to the immigration issue. This "get to the back of the line" rhetoric comes from the Republican Party, but what they don't realize is that people are being told to get to the back of a line that simply does not move. What's the incentive? (This is the same question Radnofsky asked of Hutchison's self-deportation plan.)
Radnofsky's proposal of forcing people to jump through more hoops than they are forced to do so now (and there are pretty strong security and background hoops now) is a proposal that just won't work. And throwing the "A" (amnesty) word around to describe Kay Bailey Hutchison's recent proposal of self-deportation, well, given the choice of checking-in back in their country and finishing up the process as part of the current backlog within 10 or 11 years or having to wait 15 to 20 years, perhaps she's giving people a more practical choice--supporting what seems like a more "expedited," yet risky proposal by Hutchison. Is throwing the "A" word around simply a way to take a slap at the Republican? If so, it doesn't provide an avenue to improve the system--it's just an attempt to get a few votes.
And what about the children of immigrants who came here as babies? Why should they be punished with a 15-20 year wait. I'd like to point out that Democrats have also failed to talk about the DREAM Act which would allow children of immigrants a path to citizenship based on their completion of undergradaute studies. Now that's an incentive! Putting more degreed people into our professional talent pool.
Tough talk has never worked for Democrats, especially when we attempt to talk tougher than the Republicans. During a time in which the Republicans' wrath toward immigrants and Latinos, while they avoid talking about their legislative failures on tax cuts, energy policy, education, and health care, there is no reason for Democrats to take on this issue, unless they are willing to provide proposals that work. More so than ever, it is Republican voters who have been worn out by their own Party-created wedge issue that they are willing to listen to any candidate who provides practical solutions to the rest of the problems we face as a nation.
The question becomes: How long should it take for someone to be deemed worthy to become a Citizen? And are we willing to look at our own worthiness as people born here, yet seldom practicing good citizenship?
With voter turnout expected to be dismal on November 7, it would seem to me that as much as 75% of Texans should lose their Citizenship simply for not voting. So, arbitrarily throwing out a number like 15 to 20 years for people who begin to prove their worthiness to become citizens by simply jumping through physical hoops--like a river, like a deadly desert, like the back of trailer, or like a train--is just impractical and avoids the need for a real solution. That they pay more for rent, for groceries at the corner convenience store, and pump billions into the economy isn't enough? That they take jobs that Americans won't do at any fair-market wage isn't enough? That they face anti-Latino (and not just anti-Immigrant) rhetoric and threats isn't enough?
Talk about jumping through hoops. The solution is getting rid of a backlog at CIS to make that "line" that Republicans want everyone to be at the back of actually flow. Of course, this is a solution for those that actually want a solution.
Considering that she appeared at a progressive radio station like KPFT, she should have made a bold move when asked about the immigration issue: Call it what is is--a Republican-created wedge issue to keep us away from what we should be discussing: Republican failures on security, the war, education, health care, minimum wage, etc.
Latina Lista has more on politicians misusing the immigration issue--on both sides of the aisle.
posted by Dos Centavos at 6:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home