'Reforming' immigration: The 'guest' bomb
Published: Wednesday, June 12, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Don't look now, but the Senate's controversial immigration bill, which President Obama has hailed as a “historic achievement,” is drawing increasing criticism from the left.
From unions to the Congressional Black Caucus, advocates of open borders are taking a closer look at the legislation's guest-worker provisions and expressing serious reservations.
Even the Senate's self-proclaimed socialist, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, is gagging on the guest-worker proviso, which he said would directly affect young Americans who “desperately need jobs to pay for college education.”
Of concern is how the U.S. economy (such as it is) will annually accommodate a projected guest-worker influx of at least 500,000 graduate-level workers, at least 100,000 blue-collar workers and another 100,000 agricultural workers, according to The Daily Caller. They'll be competing for jobs along with about 1.8 million American graduates.
Never mind the approximately 20 million Americans who remain unemployed or underemployed.
Writes the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, an AFL-CIO union, this is “a cruel betrayal of American workers.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who expects easy Senate passage, should check his trademark smugness at the door. With U.S. jobs a critical issue for voters, more than a few Dems aren't likely to turn a blind eye to the volatile issue of guest workers, which could well block this so-called pathway to citizenship.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- More ObamaCare fallout: Medicare disadvantage
- The Thursday wrap
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- Selling GM stock: A $10 billion public hook
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- ‘Merit selection’ for judges? No thank you
- Saturday essay: Taylor’s trains
- Lester & Joan
- The coming holidays: Get out & enjoy
- Sunday pops
- Dear Steelers: Perhaps “postseason” is but a quaint notion after all. Yours, Old Man River.