As some of you know I am involved in the immigration debate in regards to the H-1b visa (I oppose it).  One person on the board of a labor advocacy group that I won't mention by name said that I was a traitor when it was discovered that my wife was Japanese.  That behavior was condemned by all who witnessed it, thankfully.

We have got to be careful in the immigration debate not to allow racism to cloud such an important issue.  I took personal offense to the person who said that to me - after years of service/activism on behalf of my profession.  I also take great offense to those calling everyone who wants immigration reform "racists".

I find it unfortunate that there is not a louder voice from the middle in this.  You have the far left advocating for anarchy and the far right advocating that we shut our doors to immigrants.  Then you have corporations who simply want cheap labor and people to control. 

Where is the voice of reason?  It's out there, but it isn't very loud.  I had hoped Senator Webb would be that voice but so far I haven't heard much from him on this.  I wouldn't want to step into that political mine field either, but hey - that's par for the job.

The reality is that the H-1B issues are very different from those connectedLatin American illegal immigration. And these two are different from securing borders.

The only reason to gather them all together is to force everyone to have a bad deal. I don't want the bill passed. I want congress to deal with each issue separately so that they can reach sane solutions for each problem.
 

As much as I support tough enforcement of our laws, I don't believe that a fence is going to work.  I think it is smarter to go after employers and to make it a felony to knowingly employ a worker illegally.

What to do about the illegal workers?  Boy, that is a tough one and the H-1b is comparatively simple.  Part of me says kick them out - they broke the law.  The other part says that by not enforcing the law, we essentially gave them permission to come.  And then there is the humanitarian point of view.  If I were in the Senate this issue would keep me awake at night.  I couldn't vote to expel millions of people.  And I couldn't vote to allow the law-breaking to continue.  If this issue doesn't cause you to reflect on the implications it will have on people (and there are many), you probably aren't human.

I would just point out that by ignoring the law for so long we now force ourselves to make possibly cruel decisions regarding the fate of people already in a tough situation.  This is a case in point of why we should never make laws we don't intend on enforcing.  And, never turn a blind eye on violations of the law.

I think it would make sense to enact enforcement provisions along with a temporary legalization solution first.  Call it the 2010 visa - because it would expire for everyone in 2010.  The only purpose would be to get everyone here illegally registered, and grant them the legal right to work/live until this is finally sorted out in Congress.  I think that by getting enforcement votes done first, there could be rational debate on status.

The reason everyone opposes amnesty now is because last time Congress had this debate they voted for amnesty with the promise that the law would be enforced - immigrants got their amnesty but we never got enforcement.  People aren't fond of being fooled twice.  I think that if enforcement measures were in place first, Americans may support a general amnesty for those without criminal records.

I am not opposed to amnesty for those people without criminal records as long as enforcement comes first.  If we are to make a compromise, that is what I think it should be.  Only this time, enforcement should come first otherwise we may never get it.

Even if you detect them crossing, by the time the border patrol arrived they could be long gone.  I don't think it changes illegal immigration.  It will probably just change the tactics of illegal immigration.

I think that the best way to prevent people from coming illegally is to go after the source.  The fence is just a speedbump along the way.  The source is jobs.  If you punish employers severely that will have much more of an impact than a fence will.

I'm not opposing the fence because I don't think it would make things worse.  It would probably make things slightly better.  But, I think our energy should be at the source of the problem.  The fence is a big distraction in my oppinion from that.  Plus, it really just becomes a political token.

Call it economic blowback: the U.S., IMF, and World Bank put pressure on Mexico to adopt supply-side economic policies and to open the country to free trade. This in turn increases the flow of immigrants to the United States.

As we have learned in this country for the last 7 years, supply-side policies increase income inequality. In Mexico it has been especially nasty: the minimum salary when NAFTA began was $5 a day; today it is $4. Since this number has not been adjusted for inflation, the real minimum salary is lower than that.

Free trade keeps opening more and more markets, especially in the agricultural sector, which forces rural inhabitants to flow to the north. Quite simply, Mexico doesn't have any subsidies for farmers. They cannot compete against American farmers. So, when poverty gets to the intolerable level, they come to the U.S.

A change in economic policy by the U.S. towards debtor countries would ease the pressure. We know that this could have a big effect; after all, Mexican economic policies have been dictated by this country, either directly or indirectly, for the last 25 years or so.

I don't know how I feel about proponents of gay marriage using bi-racial marriage as a political tool.  I really think it is a stretch.

Personally I don't think the government should be in the business of licensing marriage at all.  That is a religious and social construct and not the role of our government.

I think people should decide whom they wish to spend their lives with, not the government.  That is a basic freedom.  I wish gay marriage proponents would stop asking the government to further regulate marriage.  They should be asking them to STOP regulating marriage (between consenting adults).

Inheritance rights, hospital visitation, insurance, and all the other things straight couples get should be extended to gay couples.  The way to achieve that isn't by regulating marriage.  It's by regulating healthcare, insurance laws, and estate laws.  Even if the government further regulates marriage, those core problems will likely remain.

I don't see this as strictly a gay issue. 

I don't hear much noise regarding the even worse policy of don't ask don't tell in the military.  That policy is an official endorsement of discrimination.  Marriage omits gays, don't ask don't tell specifically excludes them.  That is far worse.

Dennis and Elizabeth Kucinich broke the taboo against marriages between the "hot" and "not-hot."  God bless them. There's hope for us all.

The point is to get American Neanderthals to recognize that, where most of our country was once on the wrong side of history on race, so now it's behind the curve on sexual orientation.

  The Virginia Supreme Court justice who wrote the unanimous opinion upholding the miscegenation statute was Harry L. Carrico, who served as Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court for 42 years, and retired in 2003, yes, 2003.  The Virginia State Bar still gives out the Harry L. Carrico Professionalism Award in honor of Justice Harry L. Carrico, who "exemplifies the highest ideals and aspirations of professionalism in the administration of justice in Virginia."

  When the VSB begins to give out the Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop Professionalism Award, exemplifying the highest ideals and aspirations of equal rights, fairness, and the rule of law, we will know that Virginia's shameful legacy has finally ended.