SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"He comes across like a harmless hybrid of Forrest Gump and Barney Fife, but every once in a while emerges to reveal what's going on beneath that doofy veneer. It's pretty terrifying, and usually pretty racist."(Photo: Reuters)
Sessions Bullies Dreamers, but Illegal Employers? No Problemo
In taking his star turn as the killer of DACA, Sessions couldn't resist portraying Dreamers—many of whom came to the United States as infants and have lived here ever since—as UnAmerican.
Sep 08, 2017
Whew, that Jeff Sessions. He comes across like a harmless hybrid of Forrest Gump and Barney Fife, but every once in a while emerges to reveal what's going on beneath that doofy veneer. It's pretty terrifying, and usually pretty racist.
This past Tuesday was such an occasion. That's when our beady-eyed friend declared he was was pulling the plug on President Obama's "unconstitutional" Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), saying that when Obama created it 2012, he "deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions."
Sessions conveniently left out that the House of Representatives passed the Dream Act and that fifty-five out of one hundred U.S. Senators supported it. It would have passed, were it not for a filibuster led by then-Senator Sessions.
In taking his star turn as the killer of DACA, Sessions couldn't resist portraying Dreamers--many of whom came to the United States as infants and have lived here ever since--as UnAmerican. The program, he charged, "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens."
Aliens? Really? A guy that came here as an infant, went to elementary, middle and high school in the United States and now works as a paramedic is an alien?
Aliens? Really? A guy that came here as an infant, went to elementary, middle and high school in the United States and now works as a paramedic is an alien?
But the big thing, Sessions said, is laws: We gotta have 'em and we gotta enforce 'em, because "no greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law. Societies where the rule of law is treasured are societies that tend to flourish and succeed."
In fact, enforcement of the rule of law in the Trump-Sessions era has focused on only one side of the undocumented worker-employer relationship in the United States: the (mostly Latino) worker side and not the (mostly white) employer side.
As a New York Times editorial pointed out, since President Ronald Reagan signed into law a broad immigration reform package in 1986 giving amnesty to undocumented immigrants while at the same time beefing up border security, "employer enforcement has been spotty, giving rise to the institutionalization of a wink-and-nod approach to hiring unauthorized workers."
The editorial goes on to say that "as long as employers remain off the hook, a border wall and an expanded dragnet can only make temporary dents in the flows of undocumented immigrants."
But don't take it from The New York Times. Even Ronald Reagan suggested that employers should bear the brunt of the responsibility for undocumented immigrants, saying in 1984: "These are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country, and the individuals can't complain because of their illegal status. We don't think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free."
Reagan added, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those that have put down roots and lived here, even though, sometime back, they may have entered illegally."
Wow. The Gipper nailed it: Grant amnesty for the immigrants that were "encouraged" to come here by U.S. employers and make employers bear the brunt of responsibility for doing the encouragement.
Grant amnesty for the immigrants that were "encouraged" to come here by U.S. employers and make employers bear the brunt of responsibility for doing the encouragement.
A related sentiment was voiced by Christine Neumann-Ortiz, the leader of Voces de la Frontera, who told The Progressive that a path to citizenship for undocumented workers would help all workers in the United States, because when "you have one group of workers more vulnerable to retaliation or being taken advantage of, that undercuts the ability of U.S. citizen workers to make demands. That's always been the case and we've seen that play out in very real ways."
The key, Neumann-Ortiz argued, is to not let politicians like Jeff Sessions or Donald Trump divide workers with their race-baiting: "The historic gains of the American labor movement, which has always been diverse, is precisely rooted in workers coming together and organizing for those gains."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Progressive
Jud Lounsbury
Jud Lounsbury lives on a small farm south of Madison, Wisconsin with his family and writes for The Progressive and the Uppity Wisconsin blog. Follow him on Twitter: @JudLounsbury
Whew, that Jeff Sessions. He comes across like a harmless hybrid of Forrest Gump and Barney Fife, but every once in a while emerges to reveal what's going on beneath that doofy veneer. It's pretty terrifying, and usually pretty racist.
This past Tuesday was such an occasion. That's when our beady-eyed friend declared he was was pulling the plug on President Obama's "unconstitutional" Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), saying that when Obama created it 2012, he "deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions."
Sessions conveniently left out that the House of Representatives passed the Dream Act and that fifty-five out of one hundred U.S. Senators supported it. It would have passed, were it not for a filibuster led by then-Senator Sessions.
In taking his star turn as the killer of DACA, Sessions couldn't resist portraying Dreamers--many of whom came to the United States as infants and have lived here ever since--as UnAmerican. The program, he charged, "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens."
Aliens? Really? A guy that came here as an infant, went to elementary, middle and high school in the United States and now works as a paramedic is an alien?
Aliens? Really? A guy that came here as an infant, went to elementary, middle and high school in the United States and now works as a paramedic is an alien?
But the big thing, Sessions said, is laws: We gotta have 'em and we gotta enforce 'em, because "no greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law. Societies where the rule of law is treasured are societies that tend to flourish and succeed."
In fact, enforcement of the rule of law in the Trump-Sessions era has focused on only one side of the undocumented worker-employer relationship in the United States: the (mostly Latino) worker side and not the (mostly white) employer side.
As a New York Times editorial pointed out, since President Ronald Reagan signed into law a broad immigration reform package in 1986 giving amnesty to undocumented immigrants while at the same time beefing up border security, "employer enforcement has been spotty, giving rise to the institutionalization of a wink-and-nod approach to hiring unauthorized workers."
The editorial goes on to say that "as long as employers remain off the hook, a border wall and an expanded dragnet can only make temporary dents in the flows of undocumented immigrants."
But don't take it from The New York Times. Even Ronald Reagan suggested that employers should bear the brunt of the responsibility for undocumented immigrants, saying in 1984: "These are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country, and the individuals can't complain because of their illegal status. We don't think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free."
Reagan added, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those that have put down roots and lived here, even though, sometime back, they may have entered illegally."
Wow. The Gipper nailed it: Grant amnesty for the immigrants that were "encouraged" to come here by U.S. employers and make employers bear the brunt of responsibility for doing the encouragement.
Grant amnesty for the immigrants that were "encouraged" to come here by U.S. employers and make employers bear the brunt of responsibility for doing the encouragement.
A related sentiment was voiced by Christine Neumann-Ortiz, the leader of Voces de la Frontera, who told The Progressive that a path to citizenship for undocumented workers would help all workers in the United States, because when "you have one group of workers more vulnerable to retaliation or being taken advantage of, that undercuts the ability of U.S. citizen workers to make demands. That's always been the case and we've seen that play out in very real ways."
The key, Neumann-Ortiz argued, is to not let politicians like Jeff Sessions or Donald Trump divide workers with their race-baiting: "The historic gains of the American labor movement, which has always been diverse, is precisely rooted in workers coming together and organizing for those gains."
Jud Lounsbury
Jud Lounsbury lives on a small farm south of Madison, Wisconsin with his family and writes for The Progressive and the Uppity Wisconsin blog. Follow him on Twitter: @JudLounsbury
Whew, that Jeff Sessions. He comes across like a harmless hybrid of Forrest Gump and Barney Fife, but every once in a while emerges to reveal what's going on beneath that doofy veneer. It's pretty terrifying, and usually pretty racist.
This past Tuesday was such an occasion. That's when our beady-eyed friend declared he was was pulling the plug on President Obama's "unconstitutional" Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), saying that when Obama created it 2012, he "deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions."
Sessions conveniently left out that the House of Representatives passed the Dream Act and that fifty-five out of one hundred U.S. Senators supported it. It would have passed, were it not for a filibuster led by then-Senator Sessions.
In taking his star turn as the killer of DACA, Sessions couldn't resist portraying Dreamers--many of whom came to the United States as infants and have lived here ever since--as UnAmerican. The program, he charged, "denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens."
Aliens? Really? A guy that came here as an infant, went to elementary, middle and high school in the United States and now works as a paramedic is an alien?
Aliens? Really? A guy that came here as an infant, went to elementary, middle and high school in the United States and now works as a paramedic is an alien?
But the big thing, Sessions said, is laws: We gotta have 'em and we gotta enforce 'em, because "no greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law. Societies where the rule of law is treasured are societies that tend to flourish and succeed."
In fact, enforcement of the rule of law in the Trump-Sessions era has focused on only one side of the undocumented worker-employer relationship in the United States: the (mostly Latino) worker side and not the (mostly white) employer side.
As a New York Times editorial pointed out, since President Ronald Reagan signed into law a broad immigration reform package in 1986 giving amnesty to undocumented immigrants while at the same time beefing up border security, "employer enforcement has been spotty, giving rise to the institutionalization of a wink-and-nod approach to hiring unauthorized workers."
The editorial goes on to say that "as long as employers remain off the hook, a border wall and an expanded dragnet can only make temporary dents in the flows of undocumented immigrants."
But don't take it from The New York Times. Even Ronald Reagan suggested that employers should bear the brunt of the responsibility for undocumented immigrants, saying in 1984: "These are employers down through the years who have encouraged the illegal entry into this country because they then hire these individuals and hire them at starvation wages and with none of the benefits that we think are normal and natural for workers in our country, and the individuals can't complain because of their illegal status. We don't think that those people should be allowed to continue operating free."
Reagan added, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those that have put down roots and lived here, even though, sometime back, they may have entered illegally."
Wow. The Gipper nailed it: Grant amnesty for the immigrants that were "encouraged" to come here by U.S. employers and make employers bear the brunt of responsibility for doing the encouragement.
Grant amnesty for the immigrants that were "encouraged" to come here by U.S. employers and make employers bear the brunt of responsibility for doing the encouragement.
A related sentiment was voiced by Christine Neumann-Ortiz, the leader of Voces de la Frontera, who told The Progressive that a path to citizenship for undocumented workers would help all workers in the United States, because when "you have one group of workers more vulnerable to retaliation or being taken advantage of, that undercuts the ability of U.S. citizen workers to make demands. That's always been the case and we've seen that play out in very real ways."
The key, Neumann-Ortiz argued, is to not let politicians like Jeff Sessions or Donald Trump divide workers with their race-baiting: "The historic gains of the American labor movement, which has always been diverse, is precisely rooted in workers coming together and organizing for those gains."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.