>

They aren’t the brightest bunch, to be fair.
Opinion | Greg Sargent
If President Biden rolls out a major new pro-immigrant policy, and MAGA Republicans don’t make any noise about it, did the announcement happen at all?
Why, yes, it did. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas unveiled an initiative on Friday that would extend more protection against deportation to undocumented immigrants who report labor rights violations by employers.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
This is a big move by the administration, one long sought by immigration advocates. Biden’s immigration record is decidedly mixed, but this would address a serious problem: Undocumented migrant workers often fear reporting workplace violations — ones they were victims of or just witnessed — because it could lead to their deportation.
Now they will have improved access to a legal process that can defer their deportations for two years and potentially extend them work permits. The hope: To encourage them not just to report unsafe or exploitative working conditions, but also to cooperate with ongoing Labor Department investigations, improving working standards for all workers.
So far, this policy has sparked relatively little outrage among MAGA Republicans and right-wing media. Yet it has hallmarks that typically anger the right. It would allow some migrants here unlawfully to remain in the U.S. interior, based on the use of prosecutorial discretion to defer deportations, something the right has long raged against.
What explains the quiet response? It might be that this change creates an awkward political situation for the anti-immigrant right, one that says a good deal about its ideology and its limitations.
Here’s why: This policy attempts to align the interests of undocumented workers with those of native-born workers. For some on the right, casting those interests as irrevocably in conflict has been essential to their project. This zero-sum agitprop packages the nativist impulse to drastically limit immigration as all about protecting the American worker.
But this new move undermines that rhetoric. In describing the shift, Mayorkas took pains to note that it will facilitate holding “exploitative employers” accountable for taking advantage of vulnerable workers who are in the U.S. lawfully. Mayorkas added: “Employers who play by the rules are disadvantaged by those who don’t.”
In other words, allowing undocumented migrants to speak out about exploitative labor violations without fear of retribution helps aboveboard employers and U.S. workers, too.
Chris Newman, general counsel of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, has long argued this would help resolve perceived conflicts between migrants and U.S. workers. “It removes the pernicious incentive for predatory employers to hire undocumented immigrants with the intent to abuse them,” Newman told me.
“All workers, whether documented or undocumented, have an interest in being compensated, in not being abused, in being able to blow the whistle,” immigration lawyer David Leopold added. When the undocumented are exploited, Leopold said, “that brings down the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers as well.”
Republicans might yet strongly oppose this policy. They might argue it’s an abuse of executive power, or that it will harm mom-and-pop small-business owners. This is how Republicans attack Biden’s effort to expand IRS crackdowns on wealthy tax cheats, as The Post’s Catherine Rampell details: By pretending it’s about protecting small businesses.
But just as the tax move forces Republicans to defend wealthy tax cheats (while pretending not to), this immigration move could maneuver Republicans into defending exploitative employers (also while pretending not to). It will be hard for Republicans to attack this policy without lying about it or revealing deeply unpopular priorities.
Some might argue that employers who hire undocumented workers without exploiting them are also bad actors. But after we relied on millions of undocumented migrants to perform essential work during the pandemic, it’s self-evident that many non-exploitative employers are hiring undocumented migrants because of our disastrously structured system, which makes it harder to work here legally. We should make it easier.
In fact, some Republicans do support making that easier, particularly for farmworkers. Though there are fewer such Republicans these days, they’re distinct from MAGA Republicans whose demagoguery about the migrant threat is bottomless.
Which highlights another way this move challenges MAGA Republicans. Many are so focused on demagoguing about the border — as a symbol of the supposed threat of demographic change — that they often have little of value to say about the real-world complexities created by millions of undocumented immigrants in the interior.
For instance, MAGA Republicans often talk a good game about deportations. But they all know we can’t deport 11 million people, especially ones who serve as essential workers. MAGA Republicans also rail against granting citizenship to “dreamers” brought here as children, refusing to entertain a worthwhile fix targeted at what the dreamers truly are — culturally American and would-be legal contributors to our country.
Now that the administration hopes to protect undocumented migrants who blow the whistle against exploitative employers, will MAGA Republicans attack it? If they do, they should be challenged to say why they oppose holding employers accountable for their abuses. That would make their lack of constructive solutions on immigration even more glaring. >

Good points!
A couple of things I’d like to add …
“That would make their lack of constructive solutions on immigration even more glaring.”
“That would make their lack of ~~constructive~~ solutions on ~~immigration~~ [on anything at all, really] even more glaring.”
It’s not even their lack of solutions but their inability to conceive of solutions, i.e. to have an IDEA 💡 to GASP!!  creatively engage with a problem … while this might be a problem in an individual, for a country and its economy it’s devastating. The more complex and abstract the thought processes required, the less likely it is that we’ll see evidence of such in MAGA leadership.
And the truly frightening thing in all of this … ?  
The MAGA base doesn’t give a shit.  Their list of grievances is endless, and new targets are created and added daily.
Unfortunately, their inability to see an exploitative employer as being a threat not only to undocumented workers but in equal measure to themselves makes it oh-so-easy for such leechy employers to leech evermore capital from everyone’s pockets.
Again, not a problem for the base who view exploitation and massive financial shenanigans by the 0.01% as blessing from above for their own cheating ways …
​
The lack of class consciousness on full display in all of this verges on the bizarre  …  let’s all head on over to Davos and discuss! 😆 >

In addition, I would say that the primary motivation of those on the right is self-interest. Above all else, republicanism is based in selfishness. In that sense, their representatives are representing their interests. 
The base doesn't care about finding a solution that addresses the well being of undocumented workers and their families, only that the price of lettuce might rise 25 cents as a result. >

If I hear the wailing about the cost of eggs one more time from people who don’t hesitate to plop down 5 bucks on a coffee I’ll ... Well, I don’t know what I’ll do …  😆 but, yes, they are experts on selfishness to an expert level!
​
Es ist zum Fremdschämen … >

"... Well, I don't know what I'll do ..."
This bit gave me a nice chuckle. Take my upvote! >

Happy to hear I caused a nice chuckle!  Next to a generous slice of German cheesecake those chuckles are great for the soul! 😆 >


So far, this policy has sparked relatively little outrage among MAGA Republicans and right-wing media.

They are too focused on their own infighting to notice what is happening elsewhere. >

There is a really high chance that not a single one of them even understands the implications. >

You keep saying the implication. Are these Republicans in trouble? >

Love that episode. >

Which episode? >

The Gang Buys a Boat >

Which show? >

Always Sunny in Philadelphia >

Thanks >

It's one of the best episodes, but that whole series is amazing. >

Easy fix for the imagined immigration problem.    All illegal immigrants to self report on employers who hire them. The employers are fined $100k, the worker gets $50k and two year work permit.  Government gets $50.
Let's see 10,000,000 illegal immigrants working at Trump Towers all over America...that $500B for US government. >

They don't get hired by big companies. They get hired by mom and pop shops that are paying under the table. 
So you've just created a small business death Machine. Well conceived. >

Mom and pop better roll up those sleeves, pull up their bootstraps and get to work! >

A lot of them are already giving it their all and just won't be able to survive anymore :/ 
Guess you don't mind, you've got some grand intentions to worry about. >

They're "surviving" by breaking the law. Would you be so kind to the mother who steals baby food to feed her baby? 
Maybe mom and pop, and the mother, wouldn't be in such a conundrum if there was some kind of social safety net to help people who fall on hard times? 
Why should mom and pop scrape to survive, and only do so by underpaying other humans who are in search of a better life?
Potentially, we could tax the windfall profits of megacorps and use it to pay for such a scheme? Maybe the problem is the distribution of wealth, after all! >

You don't decide who is under payed and who isn't. The immigrant thought the job was worth their time. Who are you to say the job isn't good enough. 
Yes, why bother getting a good deal on labor when you can just live off the government, and we can tax amazon more. 
Some laws suck, whether or not the government gets a check from Antoine's pizzeria's immigrant labor is pretty low on my list of issues. >

I'm not sure what point you're arguing. Are you saying it's ok to break the law to get a "good deal on labor"? Or is the law itself unjust? 
The human who is being exploited here doesn't get a pick of jobs to choose from, or picks the one most rewarding of their time. They're excluded from the labor market. Business owners know this and exploit it to increase their profit margins, or scale beyond their means. >

And you want to exclude them further by shutting down anybody willing to take a risk on them cuz you've got a plan to make everyone legal or something eventually.
Oh and cause we have a commie hatred of profits
You don't think you just break things. >

I'm not American. I "enjoy" the startling hypocrisy of people who on one hand, rail against illegal immigration and on the other, support their exploitation in the workforce.
To be clear, I don't want to exclude anyone. I want the opposite!
Your point was that "mom and pop" business would be shuttered if the original suggestion - penalise them for breaking a law - is made real. 
I said that instead of penalising them like that, if we implemented windfall taxes on megacorps and billionaires, and give some of it to mom-and-pop business owners to ensure all their employees have a livable wage, it might be a more viable solution.
Let me know if there's any more 3 sentence paragraphs you'd like summarised. >

You guys think we're all exploited under capitalism. 
Your solution to this is always "just make the government bigger so it can move money around more easily"
So you get a ridiculous fine for having an undocumented employee, but don't worry, if you survive that you can be forever reliant on government money to pay your workforce. Terrible "solution".
Instead of rephrasing yourself, maybe try considering what I'm saying. >


They might argue... that it will harm mom-and-pop small-business owners.

Things I learned. It's OK if a mom-and-pop shop abuses their workers, so long as they are undocumented immigrants.
Though, of course, this has long been argument by fiscally conservative folks who oppose business taxes or imposition of employee benefits because small businesses sometimes cannot afford to properly compensate employees. >


What explains the quiet response? It might be that this change creates an awkward political situation for the anti-immigrant right, one that says a good deal about its ideology and its limitations.
Here’s why: This policy attempts to align the interests of undocumented workers with those of native-born workers. For some on the right, casting those interests as irrevocably in conflict has been essential to their project. This zero-sum agitprop packages the nativist impulse to drastically limit immigration as all about protecting the American worker.
But this new move undermines that rhetoric. In describing the shift, Mayorkas took pains to note that it will facilitate holding “exploitative employers” accountable for taking advantage of vulnerable workers who are in the U.S. lawfully. Mayorkas added: “Employers who play by the rules are disadvantaged by those who don’t.” >

I have a huge feeling that I will hear about this in the next few days, and it will go something like this... 
"Biden is letting illegals sue employers to get 2 years in the US, jumping the line". Or something to that effect. Yes it only applies to legal immigrants, but as the far right and right have shown they don't care about shit being truthful. However they can make some outrage about it, they will. 
All it takes is hannity or some right darling to make up a lie and they will jump on it 100%. I haven't ventured to r conservative yet but I am willing to bet this argument is taking place somewhere on there. >

For them, brown skin= illegal. >

I listen to a very popular conservative radio station on the drive in to work every day just to keep up with the bs - it's the station in my area that hosted Rush Limbaugh if that provides any veracity to how popular in conservative circles the ideas tossed around on it are. There was an uproar one morning about an 'app' that the Biden administration was trying to build out that would allow people to remotely apply for asylum while still/before being en route to the border so their claim could be processed faster and not clog up the system. Well the host (and callers) went all in about how it was defacto asylum not just for people at or crossing the border but it was asylum for "illegals who hadn't even come in to the country yet!!1!!1". All I could do was pause and think about what that implied. Isn't immigrating 'the wrong way' kind of the key thing that makes them "illegal". How can they be illegal if they haven't crossed the border? It's literally just their persons that they consider to be illegal, immigration status be damned. If you're brown and even try to or think about coming to the United States it's a crime to some people. >

Yeah, their true goal is to completely close the border to non-Aryans, everything else they say are red herrings, dog whistles, or other rhetoric dishonesties. >

As an immigrant from Mexico who felt pretty demoralized during the Trump years, the way Joe Biden treats immigrants like human beings and not animals, makes me want to cry tears of joy. >

Please talk to your friends and point it out. We need y’all to vote Dem. >

I obviously can’t vote, but all my friends are dems. And I did get my husband to vote in the midterms, even though he normally might not have. >

Great work! >

Biden outsmarted republicans? Must be a day that ends in y. >

If only they knew how many days end in y >

"We're not that stupid. March doesn't end in a y, duh!" >

More like, "Ill show you day that doesn't end in Y! I was born in 1961 and that is this many years old!" *holds up 3 fingers*. Then they start popping champagne and give themselves participation trophies because they thing they just slammed dunked on you. >

In 10 year’s countries will be paying people to migrate there. Population decline is real and a major problem for a lot of countries. The US is lucky to have people who want to come here. Republicans need to either embrace migration or give massive tax breaks to Americans to have kids not the companies that need to hire them. >

I agree with you, but the sad part of this is that we have made America and some other western nations unlivable for the native born populations, with wage stagnation and astronomical costs in housing, education, and health care.  
Now that this is negatively effecting the economy and our society as a whole, we might have to aggressively import foreign labor that is too desperate to protest these same problems.  Rather than fix ourselves, we will further take advantage of foreign workers.
To be clear, I support increased immigration because it is better for the immigrants and it is better for the American economy as well.  I just want all workers, whether citizen or documented or undocumented, to be treated fairly.
This article highlights a rare step in the right direction. >

I think we agree. I’m just a tad bit sarcastic >

Yes, I was just expanding on your comment. >

They have far more important matters to attend to, like Hunter's laptop. >

They’ve moved on to $30k used of his own money for “possible crimes” of solicitation, but let’s not worry about Ivanka or Kushner getting millions richer from side deals during their stay in the White House. >


Kushner getting millions richer from side deals

billions >

Ivanka got some sweet deals from China as well,  but Hunter made money on his dad's name. If those right wingnuts don't know that's what the congress' kids do, they are totally lost. However, they probably do know it, and it's just another of their hypocrisy M.O. because they think no one is paying attention. >

You should see Ron Johnson’s interview about Hunter Biden but when questioned about the Trump kids all you hear is anger and stuttering. >

The right isn't making a stink over this because they know that will just lead to more people finding out about the program. >

It’s because it had nothing to do with pictures of “trans gas stoves found on Hunter Biden’s laptop”…. >

My gas stove identifies as electric.  8-) >

I’ve long argued with wingnuts that the best way to stop illegals is to jail CEOs of companies that hire them. No jobs means much less reason to be here. The moment you turn the topic from jailing immigrants to jailing the enablers, the wingnuts tend to leave the conversation. >

Because they envision themselves as the enablers.
"Temporarily embarrassed billionaires" and all that. >

Why post articles we can’t read unless you pay for them? If I wanted to be a member of that website I wouldn’t be here. >

"If President Biden rolls out a major new pro-immigrant policy, and MAGA Republicans don’t make any noise about it, did the announcement happen at all?
Why, yes, it did. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas unveiled an initiative on Friday that would extend more protection against deportation to undocumented immigrants who report labor rights violations by employers.
This is a big move by the administration, one long sought by immigration advocates. Biden’s immigration record is decidedly mixed, but this would address a serious problem: Undocumented migrant workers often fear reporting workplace violations — ones they were victims of or just witnessed — because it could lead to their deportation.
Now they will have improved access to a legal process that can defer their deportations for two years and potentially extend them work permits. The hope: To encourage them not just to report unsafe or exploitative working conditions, but also to cooperate with ongoing Labor Department investigations, improving working standards for all workers.
So far, this policy has sparked relatively little outrage among MAGA Republicans and right-wing media. Yet it has hallmarks that typically anger the right. It would allow some migrants here unlawfully to remain in the U.S. interior, based on the use of prosecutorial discretion to defer deportations, something the right has long raged against.
What explains the quiet response? It might be that this change creates an awkward political situation for the anti-immigrant right, one that says a good deal about its ideology and its limitations.
Here’s why: This policy attempts to align the interests of undocumented workers with those of native-born workers. For some on the right, casting those interests as irrevocably in conflict has been essential to their project. This zero-sum agitprop packages the nativist impulse to drastically limit immigration as all about protecting the American worker.
But this new move undermines that rhetoric. In describing the shift, Mayorkas took pains to note that it will facilitate holding “exploitative employers” accountable for taking advantage of vulnerable workers who are in the U.S. lawfully. Mayorkas added: “Employers who play by the rules are disadvantaged by those who don’t.”
In other words, allowing undocumented migrants to speak out about exploitative labor violations without fear of retribution helps aboveboard employers and U.S. workers, too.
Chris Newman, general counsel of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, has long argued this would help resolve perceived conflicts between migrants and U.S. workers. “It removes the pernicious incentive for predatory employers to hire undocumented immigrants with the intent to abuse them,” Newman told me.
“All workers, whether documented or undocumented, have an interest in being compensated, in not being abused, in being able to blow the whistle,” immigration lawyer David Leopold added. When the undocumented are exploited, Leopold said, “that brings down the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers as well.”
Republicans might yet strongly oppose this policy. They might argue it’s an abuse of executive power, or that it will harm mom-and-pop small-business owners. This is how Republicans attack Biden’s effort to expand IRS crackdowns on wealthy tax cheats, as The Post’s Catherine Rampell details: By pretending it’s about protecting small businesses.
But just as the tax move forces Republicans to defend wealthy tax cheats (while pretending not to), this immigration move could maneuver Republicans into defending exploitative employers (also while pretending not to). It will be hard for Republicans to attack this policy without lying about it or revealing deeply unpopular priorities.
Some might argue that employers who hire undocumented workers without exploiting them are also bad actors. But after we relied on millions of undocumented migrants to perform essential work during the pandemic, it’s self-evident that many non-exploitative employers are hiring undocumented migrants because of our disastrously structured system, which makes it harder to work here legally. We should make it easier.
In fact, some Republicans do support making that easier, particularly for farmworkers. Though there are fewer such Republicans these days, they’re distinct from MAGA Republicans whose demagoguery about the migrant threat is bottomless.
Which highlights another way this move challenges MAGA Republicans. Many are so focused on demagoguing about the border — as a symbol of the supposed threat of demographic change — that they often have little of value to say about the real-world complexities created by millions of undocumented immigrants in the interior.
For instance, MAGA Republicans often talk a good game about deportations. But they all know we can’t deport 11 million people, especially ones who serve as essential workers. MAGA Republicans also rail against granting citizenship to “dreamers” brought here as children, refusing to entertain a worthwhile fix targeted at what the dreamers truly are — culturally American and would-be legal contributors to our country.
Now that the administration hopes to protect undocumented migrants who blow the whistle against exploitative employers, will MAGA Republicans attack it? If they do, they should be challenged to say why they oppose holding employers accountable for their abuses. That would make their lack of constructive solutions on immigration even more glaring." >

Good, some businesses love undocumented workers because they can exploit them.
Also we should make it easier to get a green card. >

It's not like Americans actually have meaningful worker rights... You could argue in the US your are basically always exploited, regardless of your legal status. >

This is true, unfortunately.
There are no "Worker rights" in America, only companies owning you and making massive profits on your broken backs.
Capitalism at its finest. >

MAGA too focused on Jewish space lasers. >

I think they’re busy protecting their gas stoves or something >

A maga republican doesn't notice much let's be honest. >

What's a MAGA Republican and why are we humoring this term again...?
What republican *isn't* MAGA? Would like a list of "reasonable" Republicans. >

I will continue to talk about how Biden is one of the best presidents we've ever had in modern times. Policy actually helps people and he's been killing it on policy. Internationally he's been better than any president in modern times. I get he's boring and old but if you want the country to progress he's accomplished so much. I love that he's gotten so many federal judges and no one really knows that. 
The downside to being a policy wonk is someone like Biden is amazing to me but everytime I talk about him I have to tell people why policy matters. >

This is the power of ultra instinct, Jack >

Paywall.... >

Ask and ye shall receive >

As this article points out, Republicans could significantly impact illegal immigration if they went after their employers.
They won't, because they can't acknowledge a fundamental aspect of the US: it depends on cheap and exploitable labor.
The Republican Messiah, Trump, had illegals working at his properties AND a record number of guest workers while he was POTUS because money. >

Fuck, the GOP hasn't even proved that whatever George Santos real name is ever got citizenship. >

I think he got it by marrying a woman while being gay and they really don't want to draw attention to that. >

I mean at this point I just assumed he was as gay as he is Jewish or a victim of 9/11 >

I know Joe isn’t perfect and like all politicians, has his moments that you can’t defend. 
But against all sane reason, he’s managed to be a highly effective President at a time when parliament is full of whack jobs and idiots. >

Since it’s behind a paywall will some kind redditor paste it in here for us that can’t afford the subscriptions? >

I have not been able to find a good summary or paste of the policy and it’s pretty frustrating. >

Pay wall. >

The U.S. media is so addicted to “conflict as the story” that they write op-eds to complain when there isn’t conflict >

Don't you need to have a baseline level of intelligence in order to be "out" smarted? >

For those of us that don't sub to WaPo, what is the story here? >

Reminder not to sign up to The Washington post as it’s owned by Besos and sucks. >

Literally anyone can outmaneuver MAGA Republicans. Ignore them, do what you want, and you already outmaneuvered them. They arent that smart, and by that I mean they are absolutely brain dead until FOX News tells them what to believe. >


Biden just outmaneuvered MAGA Republicans — and they barely noticed

Careful. Republicans thought they out maneuvered Democrats by getting Roe over turned. The backlash and knock on effects they got from it may be irreparable. 

It will be hard for Republicans to attack this policy without lying about it or revealing deeply unpopular priorities.

This writer doesn't know the Republicans very well, does he? It will be easy for Republicans to attack it because they have no problem lying about it. This is the most obvious thing anyone can say about them.

So far, this policy has sparked relatively little outrage among MAGA Republicans and right-wing media. 

Once the knock on effects of this policy start to propagate, there will be plenty of angles to spin this. Wait for it. >

Play this out. This policy isn't something republicans want to shine any kind of spotlight on. Labor rights ate something that they cannot win on so they have to pretend the issue doesn't exist. Turns out, when most of your base is working class, showing your base that you would rather side with their shitty bosses instead of them, that disencourages voting. 
Add to this that what this law does is incentivize undocumented immigrants to report employers that hire undocumented immigrants, something that tepublicans supposedly should support, and you have a recipe for no win scenario. The only thing they can do to save face is pretend it doesn't exist. >

Exactly this.  There is lip service in the GOP about going after employers that hire illegal workers instead of just the workers themselves but here we see the reality.