Trump's Immigration Reform

[Edward64]

From 1942 to 1947, only about 260,000 Mexican braceros were hired, amounting to less than 10 percent of the total number of workers hired in the U.S. over the period. Remember these are the legal workers that would have been selected by the Mexican government per the agreement between the two countries. We know that illegal workers were rounded up and then were given visas without having to apply through the Mexican government. Is the distinction still significant?

The reason why there were that few was, per the quotes below in your first link, because of "complicated contract process" and also the Mexican governments inefficiency.

However, American growers became increasingly dependent on Mexican workers and found it easier to go around the Bracero Program’s complicated contract process by hiring undocumented immigrants.

In addition, the Mexican government’s inability to process the unexpectedly large number of program applicants prompted many Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. without documentation.

Which legal immigrants were not affected? The original legals or the ones who became legal a little bit later. What about the legal workers who were rounded up right alongside the illegals because we weren't sure which was which?

I have brought into question if the 4.5 braceros were truly in legal status at that time.

It seems to me that US government was trying to remove the illegals and then trying to bring them back in legally.

Not in this section as there is a plethora of resources on the program. Check out the links in this post. Also Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the I.N.S. by Kitty Calavita does a brilliant job providing all the context. Even Wiki had a little blurb about it

Bracero Program - Wikipedia

Per your specific quote, it didn't really say the lynchings included both legal and illegals?

I assume you are thinking its legals because it references the Bracero program. But per my response above, we can conclude there weren't 4.5m "legal" Braceros.

Known illegal workers were not sent home. Why not? Why not get rid of them and just use the legal workers if the distinction was important. Why would we allow them to stay as if they were legal or even better immediately change the rules to make them legal? Why would we then make them illegal again as public sentiment changed? Because the distinction of legal/illegal only mattered when it was convenient.

Same reasons as today.

Combination of inefficiencies, lack of political will, business interests etc. And very likely, lack of computers to track everyone. This lack of clarity probably did lead to legals clumped in with illegals. But keep in mind, plenty of legal non-Braceros were not impacted, hence the distinction between legal vs illegals.

Reminder, a bracero was a legal immigrant.

Some but definitely not all 4.5m per my response above. My guess is illegals > legals.

Like I said before, my point was more in general than specifically about the Braceros program. But that program, what led up to it and what came afterwards are a pretty good reflection on the fluid way we look at legal/illegal immigration.

I agree it's pretty fluid.

To sum things up, I think we'll agree to disagree. I'll reiterate my point of view below:

I am saying its important to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration because one is more significantly accepted than the other which, in theory, translates to the media, public awareness, and politics.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I have brought into question if the 4.5 braceros were truly in legal status at that time.

It seems to me that US government was trying to remove the illegals and then trying to bring them back in legally.

There is no guessing on that. That is what they did. If the U.S. government handed them visa, they were legal. End of story.

I assume you are thinking its legals because it references the Bracero program. But per my response above, we can conclude there weren't 4.5m "legal" Braceros.

Sure we can. They went through the legal immigration system of the time. There were also illegal migrant workers as well.

But keep in mind, plenty of legal non-Braceros were not impacted

Do you have proof? I gave you proof of those who were affected.

I am saying its important to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration because one is more significantly accepted than the other which, in theory, translates to the media, public awareness, and politics.

Again where is the proof historically? Beyond the Braceros program, I gave several other examples where that clearly is not the case. Tolerated? Sure Accepted? It depends on many factors including who is being allowed in.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

There is no guessing on that. That is what they did. If the U.S. government handed them visa, they were legal. End of story.
:
Sure we can. They went through the legal immigration system of the time. There were also illegal migrant workers as well.
:
Do you have proof? I gave you proof of those who were affected.

You have not given "proof". You have, just I have, provided tidbits of evidence re: how many in Braceros were legal vs illegal. I'll quote your first link and wiki again.

From 1942 to 1947, only about 260,000 Mexican braceros were hired, amounting to less than 10 percent of the total number of workers hired in the U.S. over the period. However, American growers became increasingly dependent on Mexican workers and found it easier to go around the Bracero Program’s complicated contract process by hiring undocumented immigrants.

In addition, the Mexican government’s inability to process the unexpectedly large number of program applicants prompted many Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. without documentation. By the time the program ended in 1964, the number of undocumented Mexican workers who had entered the U.S. surpassed the nearly 5 million braceros.

To address the overwhelming amount of undocumented migrants in the United States, the Immigration and Naturalization Service launched Operation Wetback in June 1954, as a way to repatriate illegal laborers back to Mexico. The illegal workers who came over to the states at the initial start of the program were not the only ones affected by this operation, there were also massive groups of workers who felt the need to extend their stay in the U.S. well after their labor contracts were terminated.[9]

Again where is the proof historically? Beyond the Braceros program, I gave several other examples where that clearly is not the case. Tolerated? Sure Accepted? It depends on many factors including who is being allowed in.

There doesn't need to be proof historically. My statement is:

I am saying its important to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration because one is more significantly accepted than the other which, in theory, translates to the media, public awareness, and politics.

To support what I'm saying, just look at contemporary polls. I will also point out your evidence deals with the Bracero program only. Better evidence would be showing the subset illegals in Braceros vs all the other legal immigrants in the US during 1940s to 1960s, and how each were treated ... better, worse, the same. My guess is legal were treated significantly better than subset illegals from Braceros.

https://www.cato.org/blog/poll-72-am...lity-immigrate

Nearly three‐​fourths (71%) of Americans say it is “unacceptable” for people to illegally immigrate to the U.S., although most (56%) support making the legal immigration process easier and 55% support providing a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented who are already here.

[IMG]Graphic deleted, search in Cato link on the "Nearly three-fourths" to see the graphic[/IMG]

Gallup had a series of question. Can't embed because its just tables. But search on the following

Next, I'm going to read a list of problems facing the country. For each one, please tell me if you personally worry about this problem a great deal, a fair amount, only a little or not at all. How much do you personally worry about illegal immigration?

Next, I am going to read you a list of possible threats to the vital interests of the United States in the next 10 years. For each one, please tell me if you see this as a critical threat, an important but not critical threat, or not an important threat at all. Large numbers of immigrants entering the United States illegally

Thinking now about immigrants -- that is, people who come from other countries to live here in the United States, in your view, should LEGAL immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?

On the whole, do you think LEGAL immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today?

All of the above is evidence for my position. However, the real direct question is below but I've not been able to find any polls that asks the question directly (if you can, share it).

1. Do you welcome legal immigration? (answer I've found is yes)
2. Do you think illegal immigrants should return to their country of citizenship?

[GrantDawg]

McConnell just told Republican senators that any immigration reform is off the table because Trump wants it as a campaign centerpiece.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[HerRealName]

I've been reading a lot of Texas history lately and it's funny how often people freely moved back and forth across the border all the way through WWII. I don't think many Texans have any idea of their actual history though.

The Border Patrol didn't even start due to immigration, it was due to Prohibition.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

McConnell just told Republican senators that any immigration reform is off the table because Trump wants it as a campaign centerpiece.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

CNN didn't quite report it that way?

McConnell tells Senate GOP they are in ‘quandary’ over border and Ukraine package, uncertain about path ahead | CNN Politics

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell laid out the growing hurdles facing a national security package amid deep GOP divisions over immigration and Ukraine – and as former President Donald Trump has encouraged Republicans to sink a bipartisan compromise on new border security legislation.

According to a GOP source familiar with the matter, McConnell told Republicans at a private Wednesday meeting that they are in a “quandary,” given that bipartisan talks over immigration have created intraparty feuding and may have closed off a path to getting a massive package approved this Congress.

The fresh doubts from the Senate GOP leader – one of the leading proponents of more aid to Ukraine – suggest Congress may have to punt on the issues altogether or break up the package into individual pieces, though no decisions have been made. McConnell’s goal at the meeting, sources said, was to lay out to his colleagues that there was no clear path ahead unless members were willing to compromise.

[GrantDawg]

But Republican Senators are saying today that any border bill is DOA, bowing to Trump's wishes.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

Why won't Joe negotiate harder?

[Schmidty]

I am going to start reading this. As a guy in Texas with a girlfriend who is mexican-american, whose parents grew up in the cotton fields. Got called everything in the book and still stuck it out? A nurse for whites and a butcher from the entire 2 hours area for 30-40 years? Smart, intelligent and kind (not to cattle), although white boy me seems more wimpy?

I don’t know. It isn’t about race, country or ancestry. It is about legality and keeping it manageable. If we were on the outside, I’d do it too (sneakier and safer), but it still screws the state up.

If you can’t think of the children, think of the stats.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why won't Joe negotiate harder?

Why didn't he pass it when he had control of the House and Senate?

[Edward64]

EDIT: same question for Obama

[RainMaker]

Can't pass an immigration bill with Democrats in power. Can't pass an immigration bill with Republicans in power. Maybe he just sucks at this.

[JPhillips]

Both of you are smart enough to know he never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

But sure, the problem is Joe didn't try hard enough. That's probably also the reason Tinkerbell died.

[RainMaker]

You can end the filibuster at any time. Republicans did it when they wanted stuff done. Can't keep hiding behind rules your party has control of.

His campaign was largely centered around being able to work with Republicans and cut bipartisan deals. So I say it's kind of relevant when he can't even pass a far-right immigration bill. He's even floating this bullshit now when he knows there is no chance at a filibuster-proof majority.





[JPhillips]

The GOP refuses to negotiate an immigration bill regardless of content.

I have to admit I didn't see this RM/Edward tag team. Kudos to the writers.

[RainMaker]

Again, why not do this in 2021-2022 if it was so important?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The GOP refuses to negotiate an immigration bill regardless of content.

I have to admit I didn't see this RM/Edward tag team. Kudos to the writers.

GOP passed and sent HR2 to the Democratic Senate in Summer 2023. Dems refused to "negotiate" then.

Joe waited until the Ukraine thing came to a head before he tried to do much.

re: filibuster proof, I guess the GOP can use that excuse too. They both suck and share responsibility for this mess.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Again, why not do this in 2021-2022 if it was so important?

Or 2009 - 2011

The answer is "it's important, but it's not that important".

[RainMaker]

They had 60 Senate seats in 2009!

Originally Posted by Edward64

re: filibuster proof, I guess the GOP can use that excuse too. They both suck and share responsibility for this mess.

The GOP ends the filibuster when they want something done. They don't use that excuse.

[Edward64]

I guess Obama didn't have much of an excuse then other than he didn't want to spend the political capital to "negotiate" and make it happen.

[RainMaker]

Like with most things, Obama just didn't give a shit.

[flere-imsaho]

Keep illustrating your complete and utter lack of understanding on how our political system works in practice, guys.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like with most things, Obama just didn't give a shit.

More like he was hopelessly, hopelessly naive.

I started reading his most recent book a few years ago and stopped when he was writing about his first year or so in the White House and how he kept assuming that any day now the GOP would come around on bipartisanship and do the right thing.

[Edward64]

I'm sure naivete played a role. But I'd think this sums it up more accurately.

Higher priorities.

Immigration stands as Obama’s most glaring failure | PBS NewsHour

Could Obama have charted a different course on immigration?

Entering office during an economic crisis, Obama focused on stimulating growth and reforming the financial sector. Then there was his massive health care legislation. Along the way, he broke a campaign promise to back overhaul legislation on immigration in his first year.

It was 2011 before Obama endorsed a set of reform principles. By then, Democrats had lost control of the House and the best window for passing a bill had closed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Keep illustrating your complete and utter lack of understanding on how our political system works in practice, guys.

Explain to us how it works. Why couldn't they pass an immigration bill in 2009? Why couldn't they pass one in 2021? What prevented that from happening?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

More like he was hopelessly, hopelessly naive.

I started reading his most recent book a few years ago and stopped when he was writing about his first year or so in the White House and how he kept assuming that any day now the GOP would come around on bipartisanship and do the right thing.

The best way to sum up Obama is to watch his Netflix show. He follows around an Uber Eats driver, bewildered at how shitty the pay is and what a tough life it is for her. He was completely oblivious that this happened WHILE HE WAS FUCKING PRESIDENT and that a bunch of his staff went on to lobby for Uber against any labor regulations.

[JPhillips]

Show me the time in this century when there were enough votes to pass a Dem written immigration bill.

There have been times when an immigration bill could have passed, the first being McCain's bill during Bush's term. It was had majority support in both chambers, but the GOP leadership in the House killed it by refusing to bring it forward. Maybe that bill could have passed during Obama's first term, but it's not like there was a lot of time with the other major bills and the more conservative Dems in the Senate would have killed anything more left leaning.

But none of that matters in terms of this bill. There was a majority in the Senate supporting a bill with a lot of concessions to the GOP, but the House has always been against discussing it and now Trump has killed it. It was a package negotiated between the GOP and Dems, just like Edward wants. But somehow it's impossible to know who is at fault for it being shelved.

[Edward64]

FWIW, I'm formally noting that the goal posts have been changed from "never had filibuster proof" to "enough votes to pass a Dem written immigration bill".


Although RM and I agree some on this, I suspect we disagree on Dems "intent and degree". Just to reiterate and lay the foundation of my position and any future responses from me.

My perspective is both parties share blame (not necessarily equal, but significant enough) in not moving forward and trying to compromise, when they've both owned the Executive & Congress.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Show me the time in this century when there were enough votes to pass a Dem written immigration bill.

There have been times when an immigration bill could have passed, the first being McCain's bill during Bush's term. It was had majority support in both chambers, but the GOP leadership in the House killed it by refusing to bring it forward. Maybe that bill could have passed during Obama's first term, but it's not like there was a lot of time with the other major bills and the more conservative Dems in the Senate would have killed anything more left leaning.

But none of that matters in terms of this bill. There was a majority in the Senate supporting a bill with a lot of concessions to the GOP, but the House has always been against discussing it and now Trump has killed it. It was a package negotiated between the GOP and Dems, just like Edward wants. But somehow it's impossible to know who is at fault for it being shelved.

They've had control of Congress and the Presidency a couple times recently. I would say any of those times would be perfect for a Democrat written immigration bill.

[JPhillips]

Enough votes to pass.

[Edward64]

Obama passed Obamacare in the same/worse environment. He assessed that Obamacare would get top priority and somehow, compromised enough, to get the votes.

Obama didn't know he had "enough votes to pass" when he started Obamacare. He just did it.

He cared more about Obamacare to make it happen. He didn't care enough about Immigration.

Immigration stands as Obama’s most glaring failure | PBS NewsHour

President Barack Obama’s inability to overhaul the nation’s immigration system will stand as the most glaring failure in his effort to enact a vision of social change. Despite two campaigns full of promises and multiple strategies, he imposed only incremental, largely temporary modifications.

[JPhillips]

The ACA was the centerpiece of the campaign. Of course that was a major focus.

Remember that the GOP in the Senate decided to oppose anything and everything from Obama. At best there were two votes available for any immigration package. So where do the votes for 60 come from with a Dem written immigration bill? There were many more moderate Dems in Obama's first term.

The story with immigration over the past twenty years has been that there's no way for a Dem only bill to pass and no way for a GOP only bill to pass. There is a compromise possibility and the general terms of that have had majority support until recently, but any comproises with Dem positions has been rejected by the right and they control enough of the levers to obstruct and stop bills with majority support.

[Edward64]

Yes, I agree ACA (and financial crisis) were the major focus.

My statement was in rebuttal to your opinion there "was not enough votes to pass" as if that was reason enough not to try. Obama did not know if he had enough votes to pass Obamacare but pushed forward and started the "fight".

President Barack Obama’s inability to overhaul the nation’s immigration system will stand as the most glaring failure in his effort to enact a vision of social change. Despite two campaigns full of promises and multiple strategies, he imposed only incremental, largely temporary modifications.

[JPhillips]

He absolutely didn't have enough votes to pass a Dem written bill. In the short window when there were 60 Dem Senators not all of them would have voted for an Obama bill. A few of them would have demanded negotiations with the GOP an the GOP Senate wouldn't have accepted anything. That was McConnell's stated goal, complete GOP opposition to everything.

[Edward64]

I'm thinking you're referring to 2013? RM and I were referring to 2009-2011 when Obama had a filibuster proof Senate.

Arguably, Immigration reform was easier than ACA and he got that pushed through. Obama just figured other things were more important than Immigration when he had the chance.

[JPhillips]

He did not have a filibuster proof Senate for two years.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

[Edward64]

Fair.

Fantastic that Obama was able to negotiate and push through Obamacare without a filibuster proof Senate. He really did some negotiating and compromising with some GOP to take it over the top.

Maybe if he (1) started the Immigration reform process in 2009-2011 and (2) gave enough pork, something would have passed.

Coming back to my original statement.

My perspective is both parties share blame (not necessarily equal, but significant enough) in not moving forward and trying to compromise, when they've both owned the Executive & Congress.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Fair.

Fantastic that Obama was able to negotiate and push through Obamacare without a filibuster proof Senate. He really did some negotiating and compromising with some GOP to take it over the top.

Maybe if he (1) started the Immigration reform process in 2009-2011 and (2) gave enough pork, something would have passed.

Coming back to my original statement.

Are you endorsing Democrat immigration reforms or is this just some weird form of trolling?

[Edward64]

Let me post my quote below.

My perspective is both parties share blame (not necessarily equal, but significant enough) in not moving forward and trying to compromise, when they've both owned the Executive & Congress.

Let me know what you don't understand?

[larrymcg421]

Obamacare was passed through reconciliation and had to be significantly watered down just to do that. It would not have been possible to do that with immigration.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let me post my quote below.



Let me know what you don't understand?

I don't understand if you agree with the Democratic positions on immigration. You seem to be complaining that a new law wasn't passed when Dems briefly had control. If that law was very similar to the Democratic proposals the last 20 years, would you have been happy with that new law?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

I don't understand if you agree with the Democratic positions on immigration.

I do not agree with everything the Dems want to do with immigration. I do not agree with everything the GOP want to do with immigration.

I do want a holistic immigration reform and I understand that will take compromise, political capital, and the will to get it done. The Dignity Act is up for the next attempt. See below for my take on it and what I agree with and what I don't.

Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Biden's Immigration Reform

In summary, although there are stuff that both sides like and don't like, this is a great starting point for further negotiations, finetuning, and compromise over the next 1-3 years. Really hope it gets done.

You seem to be complaining that a new law wasn't passed when Dems briefly had control. If that law was very similar to the Democratic proposals the last 20 years, would you have been happy with that new law?

No, that is not what I'm saying. Some here put all the blame of the lack of immigration reform on just the GOP. It's all their fault. The quote below is my stance.

My perspective is both parties share blame (not necessarily equal, but significant enough) in not moving forward and trying to compromise, when they've both owned the Executive & Congress.

Both GOP and Dems share fault in where we are. No problem saying the GOP is more at fault (60-40, 70-30) but both share the mess we're in.

[cartman]

I wonder since this debate has been going on for so long, it isn't as desperate a situation as some make it out to be, and it is used to gin up outrage when convenient.

You have a governor shouting INVASION like Texas is Ukraine and there are Russian troops pouring over the border, then you have the House saying nah, we can wait another year to take a look into maybe changing the laws, if we get our guy in charge.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by cartman

I wonder since this debate has been going on for so long, it isn't as desperate a situation as some make it out to be, and it is used to gin up outrage when convenient.

I said much the same earlier in the thread. If all of the indicators tied to immigration problems (personal tax rate, violent crime rate, property crime rate) are at historic lows, can anyone point me to the supposed crisis?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I said much the same earlier in the thread. If all of the indicators tied to immigration problems (personal tax rate, violent crime rate, property crime rate) are at historic lows, can anyone point me to the supposed crisis?

BROWN PEOPLE!!!!!

[cuervo72]

Which always strikes me as funny when people mention it as an issue in, oh, the NEW HAMPSHIRE primary. Yes, yes I am sure they see a whole lot of brown people up there in NH.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He did not have a filibuster proof Senate for two years.

The filibuster is a made up rule. You don't have to abide by it. Republicans don't and I guarantee you they won't when they get back in power again.

It's just another excuse, along with the Parliamentarian wouldn't let us.

[JPhillips]

The reason the filibuster still exists is because they don't have the votes to get rid of it. You can complain, and I agree it should be gone, but that's the reality. And if the votes aren't there to kill the filibuster they surely aren't there to pass a Dem immigration bill.

The answer is better Dems. I hope that happens, but until it does this is the reality.

[Lathum]

Man. These maga dopes are frothing at the mouth for their civil war.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

But Republican Senators are saying today that any border bill is DOA, bowing to Trump's wishes.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Okay, I think you're right.

Johnson warns Senate on immigration talks and vows to impeach Mayorkas soon | CNN Politics

House Speaker Mike Johnson is warning in a new letter that the emerging border deal is “dead on arrival” in his chamber if it resembles anything close to what has been reported,

Yup, GOP is going to string this out leading to elections. A smart political move to keep things in the news.

... while also announcing that the House will soon vote to make Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas the second Cabinet secretary in history to be impeached.