« | »

Massachusetts Vote Won’t Stop Amnesty

From the CPUSA’s Peoples World (formerly the Daily Worker):

Mass. vote shouldn’t dampen immigration reform prospects, leaders say

By Pepe Lozano
January 21 2010

Although the Democratic Party lost the Massachusetts Senate seat in the state’s special election Tuesday, immigrant rights leaders say the outcome should not dampen the prospects for passing immigration reform this year.

National Latino civil rights advocates, labor leaders and immigrant rights supporters held a phone press conference the day after the election, emphasizing that passing comprehensive immigration reform remains a bipartisan effort despite the results on Tuesday.

Speakers on the call said that what happened in Massachusetts clearly reflects that voters want real solutions on the country’s economy and an agenda that represents change. Outreach to the Latino community and its electorate was especially weak in Massachusetts and Coakley’s campaign lacked energy, they added.

"Voters sent a clear signal to Washington Tuesday," said Ali Noorani, chair of Reform Immigration for America, a national coalition of more than 600 faith-based, labor, business, progressive and immigrant rights groups. "What voters want are results on the economy, on health care and on immigration."

Tuesday’s race did not involve the immigration issue and this is clearly something people want addressed, said Noorani. In 2006 and 2008 voters sided with candidates that supported change, he noted.

Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, agreed, "We did not see a highly energized campaign and Coakley’s outreach to the Latino electorate was very low."

Coakley did very little to engage the Latino community, said Murguia.

Murguia, Noorani and others pointed out that immigration reform remains a critical component in helping to fix the struggling economy.

"Health care is very important right now," said Murguia. "But as attention moves to the economy and jobs, I don’t see how you can successfully revive the current economy without addressing immigration reform."

Noorani said the issue remains and always has been a bipartisan one.

Murguia continued, "It is in both political parties’ interests to pass legislation on immigration reform especially if they seek Latino votes, because in our community this is a top priority."

Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, said the labor movement is fully committed to helping pass immigration reform this year.

"We lost one vote in the Senate on Tuesday but we will not stop," Medina said. He said unions across the country are prepared to help lobby and secure the votes needed in Congress to pass immigration legislation.

"Immigration reform makes sense for all of America and all workers," said Medina. Passing comprehensive immigration reform is not a matter of "if," he said. "It’s a matter of ‘when.’"

The current system is broken, he said. It doesn’t work for businesses or for employees. People want it fixed because it’s a win-win for everyone, he said.

Craig Regelbrugge, co-chair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, said employers and the business community seek reform.

Our shrinking economy and job base could be fixed if immigration reform was addressed in a timely fashion, he said. "Immigration reform will substantially grow the economy and from an employer’s perspective, we’re in it to win it."

Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, said one reason why immigration reform is so viable is that national polls indicate strong bipartisan support for it including from independent voters.

"People are tired of the government talking about the problems without presenting concrete solutions to them," said Sharry. "Nationwide support for immigration reform is strong and broad."

Running away from this issue is the problem, said Sharry. "What we need is congressional lawmakers to create the momentum to get it done."

Those on the call reiterated that immigration, unlike other issues on the congressional agenda, is unique because it has a history of being a bipartisan one. Passing legislation in favor of immigration reform never hinged on securing 60 Democratic votes in the Senate, they said.

Republicans, they said, need to alter their downward trajectory among Latino voters for the 2010 and 2012 elections, and the subject of immigration reform presents a golden opportunity for them to do so.

Comprehensive immigration reform will add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy, they said, which would drive up wages for all workers and support nearly a million jobs.

Who can doubt that giving amnesty will improve the economy? It’s even more of a sure thing than developing ‘green jobs.’

But it’s weird that the article didn’t mention that amnesty had been the lifelong dream of Ted Kennedy.

Another odd thing is how not that long ago labor unions used to oppose illegal immigration for the very same reasons they now say they support amnesty.

From the Wikipedia entry for Cesar Chavez, who founded the United Farm Workers, whose motto ‘Yes We Can’ (Si Se Puede):

César Chávez


The UFWA during Chávez’s tenure was committed to restricting immigration. César Chávez and Dolores Huerta fought the Bracero Program that existed from 1942 to 1964. Their opposition stemmed from their belief that the program undermined U.S. workers and exploited the migrant workers. Their efforts contributed to Congress ending the Bracero Program in 1964

On a few occasions, concerns that undocumented migrant labor would undermine UFW strike campaigns led to a number of controversial events, which the UFW describes as anti-strikebreaking events, but which have also been interpreted as being anti-immigrant. In 1969, Chávez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the border of Mexico to protest growers’ use of undocumented immigrants as strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were both Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale.

In its early years, Chávez and the UFW went so far as to report undocumented immigrants who served as strikebreaking replacement workers, as well as those who refused to unionize, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

In 1973, the United Farm Workers set up a "wet line" along the United States-Mexico border to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally and potentially undermining the UFW’s unionization efforts. During one such event in which Chávez was not involved, some UFW members, under the guidance of Chávez’s cousin Manuel, physically attacked the strikebreakers, after attempts to peacefully persuade them not to cross the border failed.

In fact, the Eliseo Medina from the SEIU cited in the CPUSA’s article used to be a top organizer for the United Farm Workers.

But apparently the laws of economics have changed.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, January 22nd, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

8 Responses to “Massachusetts Vote Won’t Stop Amnesty”

  1. proreason says:

    It will be stealth amnesty.

    All of the roiling of the extremists is for one purpose. To setup the Moron as the centrist philosopher king.

    I would much prefer that they charge even harder down the road to perdition.

    But I’m afraid that they won’t.

    After all, they have been lurking in the shallows for decades. And their bellies are now full. Why not wait a few more years to finally kill off their prey?

  2. tranquil.night says:

    “In 1973, the United Farm Workers set up a “wet line” along the United States-Mexico border to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally and potentially undermining the UFW’s unionization efforts.”

    This holds no parallels to oh – say the Minutemen – whom we all know to be hick, racist vigilantes.

    I haven’t given hope on Collins, Snowe, McCain, or Grahamnesty yet – they have towed the line on most everything else fundamentally in recent times. Pressure needs to keep on them to keep opposing this administration at the root level and not get tricked into provisions or earmarks.

  3. Tater Salad says:

    Immigration of Muslims into this country is going to be a huge problem in the near future. England is showing signs of Islamic activity to change laws in the religions favor and Sweden is now a Muslim country because of their “experiment” with immigration that destroyed the country.

    Times are tight but for the Islamic religion, 4 cows is better than 3.


    Allah is not God and here is why:

  4. woodmanthered says:

    Do the rest of the readers notice anything in the picture that bothers them as it does me. Are they not flying the wrong flag. I would think if you want immigration reform in this country. When marching use an american flag. Truth is they don’t wish to be americans only live here and get what ever is being passed out for free.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Such a “faux pas” is indicative of the juvenile mentality. Instead of risking all to come here and adapt and assimilate into OUR society, they somehow demand and EXPECT us to cater to their position. And, to make the point plain, they left Mexico, along with that, one assumes they left their loyalty to it as well. And yet, rather than rally up and assemble and change the regime that they turned their backs to, they wish to change our system to satisfy them.

      That is heavily flawed logic.

  5. The Redneck says:

    “People are tired of the government talking about the problems without presenting concrete solutions to them,” said Sharry.

    We have presented a concrete solution to this problem.

    Concrete, and steel, and barbed wire, and…

  6. jobeth says:

    Mexicans, muslims, 3rd world uneducated…soon to be welfare recipients…all, have a fast tract into this country by just showing up…illegally in this country.

    My “true” Brit sister/brother in law are NOT allowed to legally request citizenship in this country. He is in computers so they would be self supporting and an asset to this country.

    A ‘true’ Brit’s only pathway into this country is to marry an American, or to, with a very large initial investment, start a company or have a specialty talent this country needs.

    (Although there is a rule that allows for certain family members to be put on a loooooog waiting list to be allowed to join their American residing relative. But that’s years of waiting)

    In the name of “diversity” these potential leaches are fine, but not a person who not only speaks English but can be a good neighbor who wants to and will assimilate into American society.

    Perhaps, we should advise them to schedule multiple visits to the tanning booth, die their hair black and either grow a beard or learn to work the farm fields long enough to just walk in.

    Perhaps wearing a bomb vest may help as well.

    This is a family who would be as much a benefit to America as they would benefit from America.

    But alas, they are blocked…as they are white, too much like the original American settlers. And we all know that can NOT be tolerated.


    BTW…who is more likely to strengthen this country and who is likely to sop the wealth and strength of our country. Rhetorical question of course because there seems to be a real concerted effort these days to weaken America.

    • The Redneck says:

      Unfortunately, our government no longer chooses immigrants based on who would be a better citizen, or what would be better for our country, but on race, as if having a certain percentage of skin colors is what made America great.

      Most of it has more to do with guilt over America’s success than anything else–which is why (for example) Asians from Pakistan and Myanmar are ushered in without so much as a bomb-check, while it’s considerably more difficult to get in if you’re an Asian from Korea or Japan.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »