Supreme Court’s loosening of campaign finance laws may help Comprehensive Immigration Reform

LatinaLista — Columnist Paul Bedard of U.S. News & World Report lists, in his Washington Whispers column, the 10 Keys for Democrats to Avoid Election Disaster.

we are america(2).jpg

#4 is immigration reform:

Push through immigration reform that will tell Hispanics the party likes them by including elements like amnesty for illegal immigrants. Little chance of passage, however.

Since Brown’s win in Massachusetts and the Supreme Court’s decision today loosening campaign finance laws that now allow corporations and labor unions to spend freely on behalf of political candidates, immigration advocates and critics have wondered aloud just how these two situations will impact immigration reform.

Though the mood around the country, among immigrants and advocates, is upbeat and hopeful that immigration reform will be addressed and passed this year in Congress, there’s enough doubt being vocalized, as illustrated by Bedard, that’s cause enough to warrant a cautionary approach — if it weren’t for one thing.

The number one goal of immigrant advocacy groups in Washington has been to keep all elements of the immigration reform measure together. The reasoning was that if the measure was separated into its various components, it would give Congress the excuse of not passing the harder parts of the bill because they could always fall back and say that nobody could accuse them of not supporting immigration reform since they supported other elements of the bill.

That all-or-nothing strategy makes sense, especially when it’s realized that the bulk of the attention would be focused on the harder parts of the bill leaving the way somewhat clear for the other parts to get passed.

Yet, because of Brown’s win, the strong Republican opposition to illegal immigration and the GOP’s resolve to oppose anything supported by the Obama administration, the odds shouldn’t look very good, if it weren’t for today’s Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance laws.

Though the Supreme Court probably didn’t rule favorably with the intention of helping to pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the possibility exists that is just what might happen.

Throughout the immigration reform debate, businesses have formed coalitions in favor of reforming immigration. One organization, ImmigrationWorks USA, describes itself as:

ImmigrationWorks USA is a national organization advancing immigration reform that works for all Americans – employers, workers and citizens. Its twin goals: to educate the public about the benefits of immigration and build a mainstream grassroots constituency in favor of better law – business owners and others from across America willing to speak out and demand an overhaul.
The organization links 25 state-based business coalitions: employers and trade associations from Florida to Oregon and from every sector of the economy that relies on immigrant workers. Made up primarily of small business owners known and trusted in their communities, these coalitions are ideally positioned to make the case for immigration reform…

These businesses can now contribute money on behalf of those candidates that support immigration reform.

The same is true for labor unions.

Already,

the A.F.L.-C.I.O and Change to Win, two vital segments of the American labor movement, forged a compromise to support the immigration reform effort, including a disciplined path to citizenship for the undocumented.

And the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Service Employees International Union, both of which have thousands of immigrant members have been routinely supportive of reform measures. Now, they are all free under the new campaign law to support candidates who support immigration reform.

The bad thing about the change in the campaign finance law is that the public will be so inundated with all the conflicting messages that they will eventually tune everything and everyone out or off.

So it will be those first messages that must be memorable, relevant and on-target, otherwise immigration reform will become just one of those issues that’s always talked about but never resolved.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to stay informed and up to date with articles delivered to your feed reader. Invite a friend to read news on LatinaLista.

Related posts

18 Comments

  1. maryelizabeth said:

    I’m glad to hear that Immigration Reform will get support from Corporations and Unions. It does not benefit Americans to continue to have an underground class of people that live in the shadows. We are a nation built on Immigration. It is Un-American to hold back people who come here in search for a better live.
    It is hard to predict if Brown will stick to a “right winged” platform. We must all consider that Republicans need to run on a crazy platform to appease the base of their contituents to win a primary election. However, we have to ask ourselves…Why has Brown won in Mass.? Is it because of the high unemployment rate? Is it because he has that JFK look and that the average voter didn’t even listen to his platform? Or has the traditionally liberal population of Mass. suddenly gone bonkers and have decided to become a state of right wingers overnight? My guess is they are ticked off at the unemployment rate.
    Brown could stick to his guns and try to shoot down any kind of agenda the president has….but will the voters of Mass. enjoy that once the job market has improved.
    Brown could slowly shift his platform into a liberal one so that he can position himself for the election in 2012. If Brown trys to shoot down Immigration Reform he just may commit political suicide with the minority’s that will come out in 2012 in great numbers during Obamas re-election year. On the other hand if he is too liberal he ticks of his “tea party nuts” and loses the primary. I suppose I can think about this one over and over again but I keep coming up with the same conclusion: A real Kennedy will run for his seat in 2012 (and the Kennedys will run a massive campaign against Brown in 2012)…..and no matter what Brown does…I’m pretty sure he is a one term Senator.
    If he was running for Re-election on an off year he might stand a chance but running on during a Presidental election year…Hmmm,…It will be too high of a Democratic turnout.
    I just wonder what card he will pull out? He might shift on his platform for Immigration Reform. He might play his political cards based on how the public reacts to the President when we move forward.

  2. cookie said:

    Who among us isn’t aware of the benefit of legal immigration? It is uncontrolled illegal immigration that is the problem. We don’t need all these people that are here illegally. We already had quotas in place to meet our needs for immigrant labor. The only reform we need is to make the flow of paperwork go easier for a potential legal immigrant. We don’t need to increase our quotas and by legalizing all of these illegals that is exactly what we would be doing. At a time when our unemployment is high we need these jobs for Americans.
    What does “we are a land of immigrants” have to do with this issue? How does that negate our immigration laws and quotas that already meet the needs of our country? We are a nation of Americans now with the right to choose how many immigrants to allow in here. We are also a nation of laws. Anyone who says we should allow in more than we need or legalize those illegals we don’t need doesn’t have our national interests at heart and are therefore not patriotic and loyal citizens. If you have an agenda not in keeping with loyalty to and not in the best interests of our own citizens and this country then leave!

  3. Pete said:

    It’s not just about legalizing immigrants, so they can add value to our country, and at the same time help them gain a better life. If that was the case then there would be no problem letting them in. The problem arises, when they come into another country thinking it’s their own, and hence treat it that way, biting the hand that feeds them. Taking advantage of the laws that were meant to protect citizens, bringing crime into our everyday lives, acting as if it’s a moral obligation on our part to let them trample over all what we hold dear, that is where the problem lies. So when making it legal, there should be many clauses attached to it, including a trial period for everyone to see if they can live here as a normal citizen, and to know that it is a privilege to live here, and not a given right to everybody that can’t adhere to the system.

  4. cookie said:

    Pete, there are some idiots that think that because Mexicans are of partial native indian blood that entitles them to wander all over this entire continent at will even though their native tribes were from south of our border and not here. They like to claim the stolen land argument when the native ancestors of the Mexicans weren’t even from this country called the USA. These idiots hate white people and even if your white ancestors never were involved in any native indian conflicts you are automatically a racist land grabber. Bizarre, isn’t it?

  5. Bryan J. said:

    Cookie,
    You wrote:
    “If you have an agenda not in keeping with loyalty to and not in the best interests of our own citizens and this country then leave!”
    There is a fundamental flaw in your request for Marisa’s departure from the U.S.
    The question of what is loyalty to the U.S. and what is in the best interests for the U.S. cannot be answered with one, absolute response.
    You believe, it appears, that legalizing current undocumented people is against U.S. interests. That is your opinion. Opinions are subject to challenge.
    Marisa, it appears, believes that legalizing the current undocumented is in the best interests of the U.S. I agree with her, but our opinion is not absolute, either.
    So, it is a little presumptuous for you to ask Marisa to leave the U.S. based upon your own subjective opinion on what is in the U.S.’s best interests. You are not a dictator who can, with one fell swoop, declare axiomatic statements on what is in the U.S.’s best interests.
    Please apologize for improperly asking Marisa to leave the U.S.

  6. cookie said:

    Bryan, I was generalizing when I said if you are not loyal to the U.S. then leave. I did not single out Marisa. Who are you to ask for an apology anyway. Can’t she speak for herself?
    I stand by what I said. Most sources along with common sense tells one that legalizing millions of illegal aliens especially in these harsh economic times is not in the best interests of our country. Common sense tells you that you don’t reward lawbreaking anyway as was done with the 1986 amnesty that only encourged millions more illegals to come here.
    My problem with many Latinos is that their sympathy for illegals is based on the fact that most illegals are also Latinos and from Mexico. It is disloyal to America to put ones’ ethnocentric loyalty above the loyalty of this country.

  7. Marisa Treviño said:

    Bryan, Thank you very much for defending me. In my 16 years of practicing opinion journalism, Cookie is not the first to imply or say that anyone who doesn’t agree with current U.S. immigration policy should go back where they came from. I have been told that on numerous occasions. Yet, this is the first time that a reader has ever stood up for me – for that I am very appreciative.

  8. cookie said:

    Marisa, let’s clear up a few things here. There is nothing wrong if one has researched our immigrant needs and forms an opinion from that one way or another. It is quite another to want illegals legalized simply because they are mostly Latino/Mexicans like oneself. That is a sinister and ethnocentric agenda.
    Another thing that I see on many pro-illegal blogs is the pro side calling their fellow Americans racists and xenophobes who do not have a personal agenda in this issue but are basing their opposing views and opinons on this issue on the rule of law and common sense. It utterly disgusts me to see this division among us being brought about by unwarrented name calling and childish tactics to demonize law abiding Americans. It is mostly Hispanic Americans who do this and the far left idiots. Based on that why in the world would we want to legalize more of them to stay in our country? They already showed no respect for our laws and now their legal counterparts are going on the attack of their fellow Americans because of some ethnocentric agenda?

  9. oyuki said:

    many of inmmigrants came here as children they did not know anything about laws ,for them this is their country they know nothing about the country they were born in ,many of them don’t even know the language for them this is their country and wish to give back to it why don’t give them a chance to do so.the country could benefit from legalizing the people that are allready here , this would create jobs ,plus since the inmigrants that are allready here will pay fees to get legalized just imagine the amount of money that would pour in from the fees they have to pay toget legalized

  10. Bryan J. said:

    It’s my pleasure, Marisa.
    Cookie:
    Although you may have intended to generalize, your words did not convey it.
    For example, you wrote: “If you have an agenda not in keeping with loyalty to and not in the best interests of our own citizens and this country then leave!”
    If you wanted to generalize, you should have wrote: “If one has an agenda…”
    Anyway, have a nice day, cookie, and I look forward to rebutting your baseless arguments in the future.

  11. Marisa Treviño said:

    Cookie, Let’s definitely make something clear. On this site, or anywhere in my writings on the issue of illegal immigration or immigration, have I ever advocated that undocumented immigrants be legalized because I happen to share a common ancestry with the majority of them. The assumption you make lies at the heart of your misinformation and contradictory remarks. Seeing that you are equating Hispanics with “far left idiots,” it’s clear that you don’t want to understand another perspective from your own but are merely posting because you have your own agenda. I suggest you quit wasting your time at Latina Lista and find a blog that caters to what you want to hear. I think you will be much happier.

  12. Bryan J. said:

    The reasons behind why many support immigration reform is surely not monolithic in any sense. I just wrote a post, if anyone would care to read, on one of the motivating factors, for me, in my desire to see the current undocumented legalized.
    http://bryanjohnsonblog.com/2010/01/27/porfirio-the-mexican-jesus/
    Note: Lest one thinks I am a sinister Hispanic/Latino only looking out for my ancestors, I disclose that I am pretty sure that I derive from the European Continent.

  13. cookie said:

    Bryan, I explained what I meant by “you”. I often use the word “you” to include anyone within a said group. Maybe it is grammatically incorrect but there is no need to call me a liar over it even after I explained it what I meant.
    I also look forward to your baseless rebuttals to my truthful remarks. Good luck. You will need it.

  14. cookie said:

    Marisa, of course you aren’t going to admit in your writings that you advocate for illegal aliens because of an ethnocentric agenda, duh!
    I didn’t equate Hispanics in with far lefties. I said “and”. Go back and read my post again.
    If you don’t want me here just say so. I think on all issues facing us today we need to hear both sides of the story even if we still don’t agree. I hope you aren’t falling into the catagory of many pro-amnesty Hispanics who seek to silence the opposition. Does Lou Dobbs ring a bell?

  15. Bryan J. said:

    Cookie,
    I never said you were a liar. I wrote:
    “Although you may have intended to generalize, your words did not convey it.”
    You should take note that Latina Lista has a very liberal comment policy. Hence, your comments are allowed to appear here.
    In fact, in other blogs that speak of Immigration, I have had my comments deleted and/or told to go away, and you sure wouldn’t be allowed to comment in those places, either. Since it is Marisa’s blog(private property, and could be equated to a home, or club), I suggest, cookie, that you at least soften your tone and be polite and not say things like “duh!”.

  16. Jason said:

    Bryan J, I’ve read your blog but I’ve been to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries in the Middle East that employ third world nation labor, many of whom travel as far as from the Philippines, India and Pakistan, abandoning their families for years at a time, all the while sending money home. You can safely bet your life that these people have entered their host nation employer’s country legally. The Arabs brook no nonsense when it comes to illegal aliens. These Asian third world people are far worse off than Mexicans. Why would I have sympathy for Mexican illegal aliens over Asian Indians and Pakistanis? If I were a progressive like you, I’d make the case for the desperate Asians over Mexicans any day, before worrying about people who are out for the full American dream. Let me straighten you out, these Mexicans are not starving. Dr. Massey, an oft quoted source of support for immigration proponents, has said that most Mexicans already have a job before the decide to go north. This cannot be said of a half a billion other peoples living lives of quiet desperation. No, if you wish to argue for more poverty stricken, illiterate peoples who are really in need of work, Latin America isn’t the place most in need.

  17. Bryan J. said:

    Jason,
    Thanks for the offer, but I’d prefer not to let you straighten me out.
    You make an interesting point when comparing the immigrants from Latin America coming the United States illegally and Asian immigrants going to Arab countries legally.
    However, I fear it is not a valid analogy; from my general understanding, the Arab countries, de jure, treat the Asian immigrants almost like a slave class.
    In the United States, the manner in which the Asians are treated in the Arab world would most likely be illegal. In other words, if employers in the U.S. could treat Latin American immigrants like Arabs treat Asian Immigrants, they would likely do so and the “immigration” would not be illegal.

Comments are closed.

Top