Observations on the Immigration Debate

For the last few days, there have been numerous immigration-related protests and rallies across the country. Most, like the massive one in Los Angeles, have been peaceful and effective. A few have been less so, like the one in nearby Watsonville, where students from two high schools converged on an overpass and then ran across Highway 1, disrupting traffic, when ordered to disperse.

In San Jose, just outside of the office, students staged demonstrations for three days, waving Mexican flags and signs declaring, "No on HR 4437". (Technically, the signs should have read "Nay on HR 4437", but I digress.)

If the demonstrators were hoping to raise awareness on the issue, they succeeded. It was difficult not to be aware of them with all of the honking and high-pitched cheering. To clarify, the passing cars and eighteen-wheelers were honking, not the students.

Since I couldn't concentrate on my work, I decided to do a little research and found the full text of the legislation on the LIbrary of Congress website. It was so tightly wound in legalese that it was practically impossible to extract any meaning from it. I eventually resorted to reading the summary"> instead.

On Monday, I listened to C-Span's stream of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill. Not only did I find it enlightening, but also entertaining as Senators worked through various amendments. I never realized legislation required so much bickering and sarcasm.

1. It thoroughly drowned out the distracting sounds of honking and cheering coming from outside.
2. It increased my work productivity. I never thought I would say this, but hearing the voices of Ted Kennedy and Lindsey Graham in the background was somewhat soothing and actually helped me focus.

Later that night, I watched a segment about immigration reform on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. They were interviewing two spokespeople representing the opposite sides of the debate. It was informative, but also hilarious because of how each side referred to the people who unlawfully enter the country. One consistently called them illegal aliens. The other adamantly referred to them as undocumented workers.

If the two of them were to discuss people who robbed banks, it wouldn't surprise me if one called them terrorists and the other called them undocumented customers.

The use of such inflammatory or euphemistic language made it sound as though they were talking about two entirely different populations. I also think it clouded the issue and weakened their arguments.

The immigration reform bill, along with its various amendments, is supposed to go before the full Senate this week, once the senators finish whatever they're doing on lobbying reform. It should be interesting to see if the Senate passes the proposal. It should be even more interesting to see how they and the House of Representatives reconcile their respective plans if it passes. After all is said and done, I wonder if an immigration overhaul will really happen at all.