It's a bad bill and I'm glad to see it whither.

FRankly, I'll be hapy to see the Republicand tear themselevs apart over this while the howls of the racist orcs grow audible.

The Democrats have already positioned themselves as the preferred alternative for the immigrant community, and once they take over Congress, they can pass much better legislation.

i'm surprised you would say it's an economic issue.  immigration reality on the ground is affected by economics, and immigration policy affects the economy - that's certainly true.  but it's impossible to deny that most people understand immigration and a cultural and economic issue together.  attitudes towards immigration are deeply affected by cultural sentiments like nationalism, racism, multiculturalism, etc.

(of course, the question of what an "economic" issue is and what a "cultural" issue is isn't always clear.  is affirmative action a cultural issue, or an economic one?)

Horrible bill. The only political positive would have been the GOP continuing to fight amongst themselves over the issue. But they'll continue to do that anyway even though the bill is dead.

In the end this probably is the best result on both policy and political grounds that we could have hoped for.

This immigration debate is good for Democrats. The GOP is breaking apart on this, and they won't pass anything. Then, we can campaign on their failure in the fall. We can say that they had an opportunity, but didn't secure our borders. Then we can say that, if Democrats are given your vote, we will deal with immigration reform by passing the Kennedy-McCain bill and addressing the economic issues. For now, though, we need to throw the Republicans an anvil.

And Democrats should have had nothing to do with it.

Here's praise to Sen. Byron Dorgan who stood in the well of the Senate this week to give voice and support to the interests of American workers, who were left out of this debate.

Armed with a series of charts and graphs, he soundly refuted the misinformation being catapulted by the corporations and pro-immigration groups.

Like NAFTA and other so-called "free trade" policies, the ultimate aim of "immigration reform" is government subsidization of corporate cheap labor and the immoral erosion of wages and job opportunities for the American workforce.

This is simply about enabling corporations to replace people who work for minimum wage with people who will work for much less.

This bill holds alot of promise. I don't pay, as a taxpayer - for fingerpointing. I pay for results.

The bill, as it stands, is a good bill. It holds alot of promise for resolving an issue that is very important to all of us, to farmers, and housewives and everyone.

I feel that we should be clear: the bill is solid, anyone who wants to attach their riders to it, in my view is spam.

And frankly, in my view - the current process where every good idea in washington has to be watered down with 10,000 amendments is the very heart of why our government is rapidly becoming too corrupt to do anything.

Immigration has been a big issue that progressives have ignored for way too long. Millions of people are taking to the streets and most progressives are wondering why. All of the bills being proposed right now are just temporary fixes to big problem that is mostly being caused by draconian trade policies that  the US (via the WTO) have enforced on indebted countries. Now, when people flee to the US for economic opportunity as they have for centuries, we shut the borders or give them some kind of half-legal temporary status so that we can keep them low paid and disenfranchised. I think that we need to keep to our core values on this one, and stop all these stupid bills.

Well, people have been saying since right after the 2004 election that immigration was growing into the big issue in the next election.

But the simple answer to your question is this.

supposed to be over "special interests."  At least that's what Markos and Jerome tell us.

Somehow, while groups dedicated to fighting for the reproductive rights of more than half the nation are deemed myopic, self-absorbed special interest groups, pro-illegal immigration groups are meant to be embraced.  Inconvenient facts, such as the fact that legislation giving illegal immigrants legal status would hurt a lot of low income Democrats, are brushed aside.

NARAL was wrong to endorse Lincoln Chafee, but Markos was right to praise Jeb Bush?  

If you feel sympathy for illegal immigrants, that's one thing.  But you can't claim in the same breath state that you are against "special interests" that would divide the Democratic Party.  Chris Bowers once posted stats that showed 50% of Democrats were opposed to illegal immigration.  If that's not a divide, I don't know what is.