Alabama: Immigration is the rare political issue that pits powerful forces within the Republican

[pampango]

Party against one another.

...perhaps no debate in the new session of the Alabama Legislature involves bigger stakes than the effort to revise the state’s immigration law.
Fixing it is both an economic imperative and a political dilemma for Republican leaders.

If left unchanged, the law will reduce Alabama’s gross domestic product — the total value of goods and services in the state — by as much as $10.8 billion this year, according to a top state economist. The law’s economic costs will also include up to $264 million in lost state tax revenue, compounding a budget crisis that could lead to drastic cuts in state services.

Any benefit from House Bill 56 is marginal compared to the huge costs to the state in terms of real and perceived damage, said Sam Addy, director of the University of Alabama’s Center for Business and Economic Research. "It’s a net loss for the state," Addy said Tuesday. "And I’m not even talking about the moral perspective."

On most bills, the GOP’s super-majority allows it to steamroll Democratic lawmakers — who can do little more than provide a speed bump. Immigration, by contrast, is the rare political issue that pits powerful forces within the Republican Party against one another.

The state’s business community — a vital source of campaign cash — wants changes to a law that has become a public relations problem for economic developers and a burden on employers. Conservative groups — a vital source of votes — remain staunchly in favor of the law, and have vowed to resist any attempt to weaken its provisions.

http://blog.al.com/live/2012/02/immigration_the_must_see_polit.html

[zbdent]

1. I always wonder how Republicans can fit their positions on illegal immigration into their heads ...

You know ... they're against it ... until any action against an employer would cause U.S. citizens to be hired to do the jobs that people don't want to do for shi* wages ...

Would you go into a nuclear power plant and mop the floors for $1.25 a day? If you're in the country illegally, you might not want to say anything to get yourself "noticed" by the immigration office ...

[hughee99]

3. Exactly, they need to have a more cohesive position like Democrats do.

Repukes support illegal immigration because they want cheap labor.
Repukes oppose illegal immigration because they "hate brown people".

Dems support illegal immigration because "a person cannot be illegal".
Dems oppose illegal immigration because it hurts unions and drives down wages.

Dems who support illegal immigration dislike repukes who support illegal immigration because they're just exploiting workers.
Dems who oppose illegal immigration dislike repukes who oppose illegal immigration because they're a bunch of racists.

[pampango]

4. The one big difference is that Democrats (at least organized labor and the Progressive Caucus)

support a comprehensive solution to the problem. Of course, for differing reasons neither big-business repubs nor the teabagger base support such a solution.

Among republicans Mitt's "self-deportation" policy (make life so miserable for them that they just leave) seems to be the "flavor of the month". History and studies show that this policy does not motivate them to leave, it makes these workers more desperate and exploitable (and still here) which which makes unscrupulous employers smile.

The problem for republicans in Alabama is that their "toughest-in-the-nation" state immigration law has caused Hispanics to leave the state in such numbers that, while they are more desperate and exploitable, they are not longer "here" (in Alabama). This makes the teabagger wing happy - fewer brown folks to have to "take our country back" from, but it makes the republican big-money, employer wing very unhappy.

[zbdent]

5. You get past the bumper-sticker sloganeering, and the Repug positions

start to fall apart ...

[RZM]

6. You just contradicted yourself

You said that tough policies with self-deportation as a goal does not motivate people to leave, yet the next paragraph you said that people are leaving Alabama in large numbers because of the tough law.

[pampango]

7. Good point. I meant they are not leaving the US. They are leaving Alabama for other states.

Now I'm sure there are some (many on the right) who would like to turn the whole US into one big Alabama, but that is not likely to happen so Hispanics driven from one state will have plenty of others to choose from.

Democratically-governed states not only aren't adopting immigration laws like those in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Arizona (all republican-governed states, of course), many of them are passing state versions of the Dream Act to make their states more attractive to exactly those people being driven from Alabama.

[RZM]

8. I think that is the idea

I'm less familiar with the Alabama law, but seem to remember that the Arizona law's main point was to mandate strict enforcement of already-existing federal laws. So in theory the country already is 'one big Arizona,' it's just that the laws are not enforced all that much.

This is why we've seen these laws popping up here and there in Republican states. Absent change on the federal level, reform is being 'outsourced' to the states, which the Feds aren't keen on (especially since it's a Democratic administration and these are Republican states), hence the federal lawsuit against Arizona, etc.

I really hope 2013 is to immigration what 2009 was to health care, meaning it's the first item on the agenda and we get the issues out on the table and decide how to move forward. If I had to guess, I'd say that if Obama is re-elected immigration will be the first major issue on the agenda. If a Republican wins it might be too, but I don't know.

[pampango]

10. Actually it's not true that "the laws are not enforced all that much" as you can tell

by the fact that the administration has deported more people than any other. The laws were, as you say "already-existing" but were not enforced by previous administrations.

It's not true also that "reform is being 'outsourced' to the states". Enforcement is at an all time high on the federal level, but many republican politicians know that teabaggers love to focus on illegal immigrants as the source of all problems and that Obama must be lax on immigration enforcement (because he's a Democrat who loves illegal immigrants?). It plays to the repub base to blame economic problems on these people rather than on rich republicans so it continues in republican-run states.

I agree that if Obama is re-elected immigration should be a priority, but whether anything happens may depend on what Congress looks like after the election. republicans have been able to block any discussion of comprehensive reform (as advocated by the Progressive Caucus and organized labor) and are not likely to change in that regard. Their "enforcement only" approach pretty much guarantees that illegal immigrants stay "illegal" and exploitable by not offering a path to citizenship (or the "A-word as they call it) while knowing that they will not "self-deport".

[RZM]

11. It was about 400K per year, but then there was the announcement last summer

That the administration has pledged to reduce the number of deportations. Haven't seen any data since then, but I assume it's lower, since 'non-criminals' are no longer targeted for deportation.

[EFerrari]

9. Immigration has been flat since 2006.

But mistreating people so badly that they leave is bad policy, regardless.

[bongbong]

2. repigs won't mind

repigs won't mind "illegals" if they're willing to work for $0.00 an hour.

The greatest ideal of conservatives - slavery. It can make an instant success out of the brainless idiot clowns barely scraping by with "dubya" stickers on their 25 year old rustbuckets.