Here's an article about immigration and increased border security from the New York Times via the Denver Post. From the article, "To build, or not to build, a border of walls? The debate in the United States has started some Mexicans thinking that it is not such a bad idea. Nationalist outrage and accusations of hypocrisy over the prospect have filled airwaves and front pages in Mexico, as expected, fueled by presidential campaigns in which appeals to national pride are in no short supply. But, surprisingly, another view is gaining traction: that good fences can make good neighbors. The clamorous debate over a border wall has confronted Mexican President Vicente Fox at every stop during a visit to the United States that began Tuesday. While he did not publicly endorse the idea, he made clear his government was prepared to live with increased border security as long as it comes with measures that open legal channels for the migration of Mexican workers. Outside his government, several immigration experts have even begun floating the idea that real walls, not the porous ones that stand today, could be more of an opportunity than an attack. A wall could dissuade undocumented immigrants from their perilous journeys across the Sonora Desert and force societies on both sides to confront their dependence on an industry characterized by exploitation, they say...
"Rodriguez, who has served as an adviser to the Mexican government and an organizer in the United States for the American Friends Service Committee, said the porous border had for years been an important safety valve of stability for Mexico's economy, allowing elected officials to avoid creating jobs and even taking legal measures to stop the migration of an estimated 500,000 or more Mexican a year. Government reports indicate that the Mexican economy has created about one-tenth of the 1 million jobs it needs to accommodate that country's growing labor force. Meanwhile, remittances from immigrants - estimated last year at about $20 billion - have grown larger than some state and municipal budgets. If Mexicans were really shut inside their country, [Primitivo Rodriguez, an immigrant activist in Mexico] said, Mexico might be forced to get its own house in order."
The U.S. Senate is set to vote on their immigration bill today, according to the Denver Post. From the article, "A sweeping bill on immigration is on track for final approval today in the Senate, setting up contentious election-year negotiations with conservative House leaders who are demanding a harsher crackdown on illegal immigrants. The Senate bill, which incorporates ingredients of President Bush's proposal, combines enhanced border-security measures, a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for most of the 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States. The bill's supporters said they expect an overwhelming vote in favor of the bill today, with a margin similar to Wednesday's 73-25 vote to close off debate. The leaders said they hoped the size of the majority in the Senate will convince House opponents that any immigration bill must include ways for illegal immigrants to achieve legal status. This is a key difference between the two chambers."
Mike Littwin weighs in on the current immigration debate in today's Rocky Mountain News. He writes, "Well, I finally figured out what the crisis is. It's not, of course, an illegal immigration crisis. We could handle that. What we have is a national crisis of confidence. We don't need half-baked legislation. We need a full-baked collective shrink. This is no little crisis. It's as big as the wall they're talking about building along the Mexican border. Ask yourself, and I'm offering this advice for only 50 cents: How did America - arguably the most powerful country in the history of the world - become so fearful? Apparently, although I still have trouble believing it, we really are afraid of the busboys and the roofers and the housekeepers and the nannies who risk their lives sneaking across the border...
"But Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo tell us there's a border crisis. And so, the House passed a bill turning illegal immigrants, and anyone who would feed or clothe them, into felons. And the president makes a prime-time speech from the Oval Office to alert the nation that the border problem, five-plus years into his presidency, is suddenly "urgent." I guess all those illegal immigrants arrived last week. And now, the Senate is set to finish its bill. Whereas the House bill was at least straightforward - I'm just surprised it didn't call for mining the harbors - the Senate has put together a bill that is, to put it nicely, a disaster of badly formed compromises. The worst of these is the so-called amnesty section, which New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg eloquently termed 'ridiculous.' It's a three-tiered amnesty that depends on an illegal immigrant's ability to prove how long he has been in the country. Yes, all that stands between the immigrant and deportation is the guy who conveniently forges 5-year-old electric bills. If you've been here more than five years, you're eligible to begin an 11-year amnesty process. If you've been here under five years, you have to report to a border first. If you've been here less than two years, you have to report to the border and you don't get to come back. Does anyone believe this could possibly work?"
"2008 pres"
6:28:15 AM 
|
|
