Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (286138)	5/2/2006 6:23:31 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575216

Ted, Why are they doing this? Do they think people will be afraid to shop Monday? Maybe I am wrong but just don't see this thing causing much of a disruption......do you? No, but the local talk radio hosts on that station wanted to make a counter statement during the "Great Illegal Immigrant Boycott." With any luck, businesses should see increased revenue that day ... ;-) Now I understand. Thanks. I am not sure there was much disruption of business for all the brouhaha.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (286138)	5/2/2006 6:24:19 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575216

Was Congress watching? Published May 2, 2006 Modern-day Americans exert influence in many ways: with the click of a keyboard that sends a message, with the cutting of a deal that sustains a business, with the purchasing choice that tells a merchant what product we like. But none of those relatively passive exercises carries the influence of feet in lockstep by the hundreds of thousands in support of a cause. Across this land, Monday's immigration marches constituted a powerful display of many, many people's desire for a more stable place in America's bountiful firmament. But those outpourings also straddled a paradox: While the conduct of the marchers was lawful, for many of them their mere presence on the streets of this country was not. This nation has not done a good job reconciling the illegal status of many of Monday's marchers with their heartfelt aspirations. Instead, the ongoing immigration debate in this country badly divides us. Angry schisms now cleave us in ways that defy our familiar tribalism: Democrats are split between those who essentially want amnesty for illegal immigrants and those who believe those immigrants are stealing jobs from poor Americans. Republicans are split between those who think cheap immigrant labor greases the burgeoning U.S. economy and those who see our borders overrun by a slow-motion invasion. Immigrants themselves are split between proud protesters determined to show the strength of their numbers and workers who think mass demonstrations or boycotts will alienate the Americans they yearn to persuade. These schisms and more intersect on Capitol Hill. The House already has voted to toughen U.S. immigration policy. The Senate is leaning toward legislation that would toughen enforcement of existing rules but also offer a route to citizenship for some subset of the 12 million illegal immigrants who live in this country. Critics of the tougher House legislation see it as a cruel and unrealistic attempt to turn back the clock. Critics of legislation being discussed in the Senate see it as yet another amnesty for illegal immigrants, buffed with a phony patina of border enforcement. The view here is that the Senate is headed in the better direction. But only the House has acted, and a struggle toward compromise can't begin with only one version of a new immigration law on the table. With so many senators content to mouth platitudes rather than to actually accomplish something, the prospects are dim. Each day the November general election draws closer without action from Congress, the likelihood grows that many nervous pols will duck this controversy. Voters deserve fewer platitudes and more tough choices from their senators. Which is doable because, judging by what those voters tell pollsters, the outlines of a consensus are clear: Americans say they primarily want a crackdown on illegal immigration, particularly at the U.S. border with Mexico. They also want stern enforcement measures against employers who flout existing immigration law by hiring illegal immigrants. But for all this concern about the federal government's slipshod enforcement of existing laws, Americans also tell pollsters they're open to a liberalized protocol that would allow some of the people in this country illegally to pursue citizenship. By definition, though, the third of those three pillars of a new immigration scheme creates a fourth question Congress absolutely must answer: Going forward, how will we juxtapose the rights of illegal immigrants with those of law-abiding applicants for citizenship who are waiting overseas to be admitted here? So far, though, Congress hasn't caught up with that American consensus--even though President Bush seems willing to sign something like it into law. Did Monday's protests move the participants closer to citizenship, or to expulsion? If that question is to be answered--if the emerging American consensus on immigration reform is to become law--the Senate must now act and then negotiate. But marching to the Senate's beat makes for a mighty quiet shuffle of feet. chicagotribune.com