Immigration Bill Open Thread:
I haven't followed the immigration bill closely, although it's obviously a very important piece of legislation. I have a vague sense I support it: We Americans have an internally incoherent set of views towards illegal immigration, and given that occasional fixes like this are probably inevitable over the long haul.
But I'm guessing VC readers have a lot of strong views about this issue, and would be interested in voicing them. In light of that, here's an open thread on the immigration bill. Comment away. As always, please keep it civil.
But I'm guessing VC readers have a lot of strong views about this issue, and would be interested in voicing them. In light of that, here's an open thread on the immigration bill. Comment away. As always, please keep it civil.
The one thing I am curious about - given the cost of citizenship financially, are there any useful estimates about the amount of people expected to gain amnesty under the proposal? Something tells me this is more about the theory of immigration than the actual effect of it.
1) Scofflaws make our nation more exciting and diverse. Who wants all those law-abiding immigrants anyway?
2) Bootleggers have wants and needs just like the rest of us, and they would be out of business if our laws were enforced.
3) The United States is a vast cuontry with lots more room for people. Without millions more people, we will not be able to fully maximize our contribution to global warming, habitat destruction, and high real estate prices.
4) War has an important unifying effect on our country, and it would make it very difficult for our enemies to wage war against us if they can't sneak across our southern border whenever they want.
5) U.S. Senators love to be pompous and condescending about how "racist" it is to enforce our immigration laws. Asking them to actually enforce our immigration laws would fundamentally alter the character of the Senate.
6) It's important to allow a continued flow of illegal, cheap labor to come into the United States, now that the Thirteenth Amendment has made legal slavery impossible.
7) Etc. Etc. Etc.
I think Pres. Bush is pushing this legislation (against all cold political calculation) because he genuinely believes it is the right thing to do-- or maybe it is more accurate to call it the best compromise that can be reached. That counts for something, and I wish I could hear what it is that the supporters see in the legislation that is so important that they would risk alienating their base. It is a rare sight in our modern politics to see a politician put idealism over politics. I suppose this is one of those examples of a the freedom of being a lame duck.
What I know of the new bill is pretty bad: it rewards those who have broken the law so far, and encourages more to enter illegally to take advantage of the amnesty. It does these things in a way that strongly favors people who have the means to get onto US soil, to the disadvantage of others (Africans, Asians) who cannot.
When I pay a traffic fine, it doesn't seem to me that I got amnesty.
There was a time in US history when a "wide open" immigration stance made sense. I think it is also obvious that that time has long past. In particular, it makes no sense to have a massive immigration of people who have no particular skills, education or knowledge that are beneficial to a nation. Or does it? I am sincerely asking. On the surface, it appears obvious that such people will not fit particularly well in an advanced economy-- like the US or Europe-- and are disproportionally likely to end up needing financial aid than they are to create wealth.
I have no problem with the idea of immigration being slanted heavily toward educated, productive people. I suspect that most people who are uneasy with the illegal immigration problem feel the same. As always, the race card is being used in this argument to distract from this very non-racist concern. Why is it in our national interest-- and why is it our de facto national policy-- to allow massive immigration of other nations' poor, sick, uneducated, low skill citizens? We don't have enough of our own?
Yes I realize that supporters say it isn’t an amnesty because the illegal aliens would have to pay a fine and back taxes but opponents charge (correctly IMO) that they’re unlikely to pay this money anyway and they’re going to continue remaining in the country for the most part.
I had also heard (and if anyone knows differently I would appreciate the correction) that the original legislation said something to the effect that when an illegal alien applied for a Z visa, the federal government had something like a day to conduct a background check and provide a reason for rejecting it otherwise the visa would be granted (it was since amended to something like 30 days). Assuming that this is true and not just an exaggeration or distortion by opponents of the bill, having a provision like that in the bill would probably lead a lot of people to the conclusion that the authors of the bill really aren’t interested in enforcement which validates their suspicions that this is setting us up for a repeat of 1986.
So, at one point, a lot was being made about the rigors of becoming a citizen, and that border security would have to be tightened before that. But then, the response was that most of these people are probably happy just being legal, or at least not deported, so tying citizenship to border security was irrelevant. But I don't know where that has gone.
The bill proposes to let aliens come to work jobs in this country for a limited time. Leave aside the implied-slavery aspect of this program (if they leave their jobs, they have to return home), and just think about the effect on the labor market. Companies get lower wage costs, in as much as the supply of labor increases, and workers of all stripes get lower wages. The immigration bill is a huge boon for Corporations, who stand by some estimates to make $330 billion from this bill in lower wage costs, while current American workers lose about $300 billion in wages. (It's estimated to be a net gain to the country of $30 billion due to general increased productivity, distributed VERY inequitably.) I can't imagine why this idea is so popular.
And of course, nobody begins to explain how we're actually going to force "guest workers" to leave after their 2-year stints.
The bill is just full of great ideas...
1) Is there any reason that current laws are not being enforced, and if they can't be, why aren't they and why were we told in 1986 that this would decrease illegal immigration?
2) If the last "fix" of 1986 is too complicated or too difficult to enforce, why would this new law be any different.
I suspect, though I cannot know, that this is merely a pandering to the immigrant lobby to see who will get the most votes from the newly enfranchised citizens. Remember Clinton's orders to INS to "emergency" process tens of thousands citizen wannabees in the late 90's before all of the requirements had been met? Where did a majority of those "votes" go and where will the new ones go? If this is pandering for votes, and I strongly suspect it is from both the rhetoric of the "ruling class," and from the push from the immigrant lobby, then the Legal immigrant and new citizens and the native born citizens of this great nation will have been screwed. And we didn't even get a kiss.
1. A lot of the MSM coverage seems to be focused on "immigration problem." But it's not clear to me what the problem is. There seems to be an assumption that immigration is hurting the American economy. But - if that's true - then why has our economy been booming while we've been integrating tens of millions of immigrants. Where's the evidence of harm?
2. In fact, as others have pointed out, there may be a direct link between high levels of immigration and our economy's recent success. If cheap immigrant labor has held inflation in check, resulting in lower interest rates and higher levels of investment, then maybe immigration is actually contributing to our GDP growth, rather than subtracting from it. Does anyone know of any research looking at this question?
3. One of the standard liberal arguments against illegal immigration is that it depresses the wages of poor Americans. But this argument seems to be based on the assumption that we should protect the wages of poor Americans at the expense of even poorer Latin Americans. By almost any measure, "poor" Americans have more money and opportunties than the massess of people in the Third World. If one wants to combat income inequality, then it seems logical to allow poor people to move to an area of the world that has more money. Why should we protect relatively affluent American "poor" people while we tell truly poor Latin Americans to stay in abject poverty?
4. If one believes in free trade (as most conservatives do), then the most intellectually consistent position is to favor the liberalization of immigration. If goods and capital are allowed to cross borders with relatively few restrictions, then why shouldn't labor be afforded the same freedom?
We don't believe that the Federal government has expended the least bit of effort in applying existing laws against the illegal immigrants and those who employ them. This policy seems to continue, regardless of which party controls the Federal government.
It appears that supporters of the bill are far more interested in granting legal protection, as well as citizenship, to those who are illegally in this country now. The hard-wired portions of the law are those granting rights to the illegals.
It is the lack of good faith on enforcement that irks me the most. If I really thought that the migration of millions of people would stop or slow substantially, I might actually support the bill.
Before we fully open the border, we will need to work on security issues with Mexico. This will involve extending our current sea and air defense systems to Mexican waters, and guarding the southern Mexican border with Guatemala (a much shorter border than that between the U.S. and Mexico). Mexico must continue its current campaign to combat drug cartels and root out corruption in its law enforcement agencies. Once we are satisfied with Mexico's response, we would allow free flow of non-criminal citizens through authorized border checkpoints. We could then assume that anyone still trying to cross our border illegally was doing so for genuinely harmful criminal purposes, and could act accordingly.
After security issues are resolved, all the economic arguments, when looked at with facts instead of anecdotes, point toward allowing free flow of peoples across the border. Here is a summary of those arguments:
1. Mexican immigrant workers fill low-paying jobs that our economy needs to function well. The U.S. does not have a large number of unemployed citizens available to do these jobs - our unemployment rate is low not only historically, but in comparison to the average among the world's developed economies. The argument that employers should just pay higher wages to attract Americans to these jobs flies in the face of basic principles of economics. Higher wages mean higher prices. Higher prices mean less demand. Less demand means fewer employees are needed. And there go the jobs that were reserved for "real Americans."
2. The fiscal problem with current immigrants, legal and illegal, is not that they drain our economy, but rather that the burdens and benefits of their presence are unevenly distributed in our federal system of government. The benefits, in terms of taxes collected (not just from the immigrants themselves, but also from the increased overall economic output resulting from their presence) goes primarily to the federal government. The burdens, reflected in social welfare and health costs, are placed primarily upon state and local governments where the immigrants are located. This can be resolved by equalizing this burden, not by making our entire nation poorer.
I'll talk about the social arguments in favor of an open border in another post.
For one, the "comprehensive" advocates need to respond to the Heritage immigration data, which I haven't seen them do. For two, they need to respond to national security imperatives, which I haven't seen them do. Cut that bill apart, and the public might begin to understand this, or parts of it.
7) The right to travel is a fundamental right, and therefore anyone who wants to should be able to get into this country, including a billion Chinese if they so desire.
8) We struggled all those years to tear down the Berlin Wall, and the proposed border security measures would be almost exactly the same horrible thing as the Berlin Wall (except that they would keep trespassers outside rather than trapping an imprisoned population inside).
9) We are a nation of illegal immigrants.
10) It's important for the United States to alleviate the overpopulation crisis in other countries by letting more people sneak into this country, thereby allowing those other countries to postpone dealing with the crisis.
I think you’re right about that, while I suspect that much of the opposition to the actual contents of the legislation may be based on a misunderstanding of what the contents are (or in some cases an outright distortion); the lack of good faith on enforcement and the way many of the bill’s supporters treat it as either an after thought or as just a way to placate the public (there was an NPR story regarding the Mexican legislature’s reaction to a previous version in which a public official went on record as saying that the border control was the price they had to pay to get amnesty) makes me uneasy about the bill.
Recently, Heritage has a bunch of data up, on the subject of immigration. Have at it. Engage them. The Washington honorables have certainly avoided doing so.
Republicans service their corporate clients with cheap labor, and Democrats gain new voters. Both parties win and the common citizen is shown contempt.
The policy question is seperate from this, but as has been noted, the only reason that immigrant labor is cheap, is because Americans have fought for better working conditions, etc., and so now these poor immigrants don't have to be granted the same protections. Which from a fee-market operspective is just fine. But That's still no reason to give any of them a path to citizenship.
You are caught in the protectionist fallacy. American workers don't lose out when firms do well (and its not just corporations, its small business at least as much)-- on the contrary, the bigger profits for American companies by use of cheap labor will lead them to expand and invest, hire more management and skilled labor, spend more in our economy, etc.
Most Americans can see this, they don't think in terms of a zero sum game, and being entrepreneurs themselves, tend to realize that a market which is good for business is good for workers - and for entrepreneurs.
If I run a little housecleaning business, I know why it is nice to be able to hire cheap immigrant labor - and I know that I could not survive at all if I was forced to hire only Americans and especially with a minimum wage law in place. If I can't survive ,it hurts me and it hurts other workers in the economy too as I am forced to return to the labor market as a worker instead of an employer.
I would agree, if it ended there. We should stop people coming into our house/country if they don't have permission. But the immigration situation is a bit more complex than the house/trespasser analogy you use. For example, how would you feel if someone came in through your back (or front) door uninvited, and then began living in your basement, maybe paying you rent, taking care of some of the odds and ends around the house, etc. You knew they were there, but never got around to telling them to leave. Several years go by, there still living in your basement, you still do nothing to evict them. You even know them on a first name basis now. Who knows, maybe you occassionally break bread together and exchange gifts for birthdays and holidays with their kids, because in the ensuing years that they've been living in your basement, they've managed to start a family. Years later, are you still so pissed off that they can in the back door uninvited?
The problem today is that there is a mismatch between the current immigration law and the needs of the economy. Immigration policy favors family reunification and refugees, not the people with skills we need or the willingness to do jobs that others here will not. As long as that continues, immigrants will come looking for work, regardless of what immigration policy is. Our borders (including airports, seaports, etc.) are simply too long to police effectively.
I doubt it. Most of the illegal aliens who are working in the United States seem to working for smaller businesses, farmers who pay them in cash, or for individual households. I doubt very much that larger businesses much less corporations whose officers and managers know that they are likely to be high profile targets of an investigation or law enforcement would risk knowingly hiring illegal aliens in any meaningful numbers.
1) haste. normally bills have to go through extended review by various legislative committees; this one bypassed committee review.
2) complexity. As I understand it the bill is several hundred pages, more than I want to read myself and containing lots of gems that can be quoted by demagogues on both sides in support of the issue. Past legislation in this area has failed to deliver on its promises. Simplicity would help here.
3) Fairness to those who follow the rules. A bunch of my coworkers are non-citizens in the US under various visas. They talk frequently about the uncertainties attached to maintaining legal status and getting permanent residence status; they have to leave the US periodically to renew.
As I understand it, the proposal allows people who entered the US illegally (bypassing the bureaucratic limbo) to come forward and almost immediately get provisional protection from deportation, while people who want to move to the US legally often face long waits for approval back in their home country.
For me, "fair" would allow someone here illegally to come forward and say they're going home to get in line legally, and be granted the equivalent of a short-term tourist visa to permit them to wrap up their lives here and move home in a dignified manner, with no advantage over those who consistently followed the rules.
Employers of illegals, when caught, should pay a fine of $25 per hour per illegal ($50k per man-year).
Landlords should forfeit all rents paid to them for housing used by illegals.
Banks that open accounts for illegals should be required to close those accounts, and pay triple the balance to the Federal government.
There was a time when illegals would hide in terror of "la immigracion". Let's bring those days back.
Many folks like me oppose the bill because it does exactly what Thorley says. It provides immediate protection then if money is spent on enforcement it triggers a path to citizenship.
What most of us want is increased enforcement first. Not just pissing money away. IF enforcement makes a measurable difference in reducing illegal crossings, then and only then should we consider regularizing current illegals
The current bill is a fantasy of numbers.
1. today there are 12-15 million illegals
2. if the bill passes, 3-5 million more folks will come across in the 12-18 months before the window closes. these folks will produce fraudulent documents (a statement from a non-relative and a gas bill) to establish that they too were here last year.
3. all the children, parents, and spouses of illegals are also included, thats another 10 million
4. so now were are at 30 million in this group for amnesty. they have 12 months to file, but with the front loaded protection, there will be a front loaded application process. say 2 months. well that's 40 work days. or 750,000 applications a DAY.
5. The previous version stated that DHS had 24 hours to do the background check or automatically grant the visa. Given that the DHS has a current total backlog of 400,000 checks that it cant catch up with, how could it possibly do 750,000 a day? (my wife works for DHS btw)
total lunacy.
Without knowing all of the details, I tend to reject any bill that creates a guest worker program. I don't like the idea of creating subclasses.
Will we be able to compete with China without a relatively open border? Will we be able to support all of the retiring baby boomers?
To me, the answer to that last question is pretty obvious: because they're Americans. Let Latin America worry about Latin America. If those governments worked at making their countries more appealing for their own citizens, then our immigration problems might be lessened. The US is more affluent for a reason, and it not due to having millions of undocumented and questionably skilled persons sucking at the teat of the US Government.
And why is it that (here and elsewhere) so many pro-Immigration viewpoints contain appeals to emotion and sentiment, while the anti-Immigration viewpoints rely on facts? Should the moral high ground be the launching point for Immigration law? Shouldn't hard facts and cold reason be part of this as well?
I haven't made up my mind about the bill yet. But I do wish people would do some research (or at least follow the news regularly) before "very much doubting" something.
Wal-Mart does it.
Wal-Mart (sort of) does it again.
Wal-Mart (definitely) does it again.
Large pallet maker does it.
These are just the stories I remembered hearing about. I imagine some real research would yield even more examples.
Anyhow, I am not expressing a view one way or another. But, really, is it too much to expect people to do at least do a little research before commenting?
Personally, I don't much care about the issue either way for most of the reasons DeRoche noting. But I am greatly enjoying watching conservatives squirm. Stuff like this cracks me up too:
"If one believes in free trade (as most conservatives do), then the most intellectually consistent position is to favor the liberalization of immigration. If goods and capital are allowed to cross borders with relatively few restrictions, then why shouldn't labor be afforded the same freedom?"
Lolz. Conservatives? Free trade? You forgot the part about how free trade is only good when it benefits U.S. corporations and stockholders, otherwise it's a menace to society.
Most people believe that if we had open borders everyone in Mexico would move here. That would, I agree, suck.
Some believe that if we had open borders large numbers of Mexicans would work here for a while, then go home, saving a bit of money here and taking advantage of the lower cost of living there.
If you believe the first, then you should be against this bill because it encourages increased immigration from Mexico which we can't deal with.
If you believe the second, then you should oppose this bill because it doesn't do anything to help the Mexican who wants to work here, then go home and buy a house.
The reason why people dislike this bill is because for both predictions, the bill won't help and may hurt.
Before z-visa happen
*50% of the border fence has to be built
*The number of illegal border crossings must substantially go down.
*Congress must agree and say that we are making real progress with the border, and vote with a majority vote.
This means at least some border enforcement will occur
Furthermore if you cross the border past the bill signing you will be fingerprinted and sent back. Furthermore you can NEVER get a greencard, residency, citizenship etc, thus preventing another amesty.
Ignoring us... is this good for them, really? Should our policy continue to enable an artificial and perhaps corrosive migration, and from a country so rich in resources? Isn't this a clear sign of rot on our doorstep... a rot that we enable?
I think a surplus of cheap, relatively unskilled, and illegal immigrant labor distorts the market in labor and indirectly in housing.
It doesn't seem to be a social necessity to have cheap fast food (or cheap food in general, considering the obesity epidemic), cheap lawn care, cheap child care, cheap janitorial services, or cheap construction labor. If we did have a "necessity" for something cheap, possibly it should be health care or legal services or perhaps more thrift in government.
And I really wish before playing “gotcha” you had bothered to actually read the links you posted rather saying “oh goody, they mentioned Wal-Mart.” Because had you bothered to actually read any of the links you posted you would have seen that illegal aliens were employed by a sub-contractor who worked on building a Wal-Mart store and a cleaning contractor who performed janitorial services for Wal-Mart.
Which sort of explains why even though Wal-Mart got its name dragged through the mud, there weren’t any actual charges of immigration violations brought against the company for those incidents because (wait for it) they’re not responsible for monitoring whether the two smaller companies who actually did hire illegal aliens were following the law.
That was part of Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986, and the proposed bill simply makes that even *more* attractive than following the law. One little affidavit, and you've got your Z Visa and will be left alone. Heck, you probably won't even need the affidavit, and will be able to pick up forged Z Visas at your local flea market, just as green cards and Social Security cards are available now.
The employer has to check your status within *eighteen months* after you're hired (three years for existing employees), but the background check is supposed to be done in a day? Now *there's* something to strike fear into the heart of your average agricultural worker: in a year and a half, he might have to find a different job.
I have yet to see ONE person favoring this bill explain how it differs from Simpson-Mazzoli, and why it will work when the latter did not.
Their trial initiative has succeeded so far, as Pedro Guzman is still missing somewhere in Mexico. My question is whether the present bill will require the agencies to locate Pedro, bring him back and give him amnesty if his mother Maria Carvajal pays a fine on his behalf.
How much is that in terms of miles? IIRC didn’t the legislation authorizing the construction of border fence only cover a portion of the border (so we’re talking about 50% of that portion rather than 50% of the total border). It seems to me then that this would be a step down in enforcement because it basically says that Congress has to only follow through with 50% of what it had already promised before it can grant the z-visas. In which case I can see why the border fence supporters tend to be opposed to this bill.
Much as I’m not a fan of the Minutemen, they did have a point that the border patrol wasn’t stopping or monitoring many of the illegal border crossings. In which case I could see “substantially go down” as meaning “looking the other way or not recording them.”
Which means it could just be stuck in as a rider in an unrelated bill during conference committee and if the bill passes with the rider, voila Congress has “agree[d] and sa[id] that we are making real progress with the border” without even debating it on the floor in any meaningful manner.
You may think I’m being overly cynical but immigration reform isn’t an issue IMO that most members of Congress want to deal with. The way that this bill is being put together and debated plus the way that they try to pass the buck onto future Congress to make the tough decisions makes me suspect that they’re just trying to pass a bill so they can say they dealt with the issue and go back to other, less volatile legislation.
4. If one believes in free trade (as most conservatives do), then the most intellectually consistent position is to favor the liberalization of immigration. If goods and capital are allowed to cross borders with relatively few restrictions, then why shouldn't labor be afforded the same freedom?
The difference is that widgets crossing the border do not require government services such as schooling, health care and welfare.
This is denial of the problem. They can all go back to Mexico that easily today. They don't. So what are we going to do, raise an army 250,000 strong to throw them out and keep them out?
And if you want to talk fairness, is it "fair" that I was born middle-class in the US and had a chance to become rich, yet a guy named Carlos was born poor in Mexico with only the smaller chance of getting ahead?
Sorry, the fairness argument says let them all in.
Agreed do the “there’s no difference between goods crossing borders and people crossing borders” people really think that false symmetry persuades anyone?
And it goes without saying that there a number of instances where there should be restrictions on goods crossing borders as well – prohibited technology transfers in the case of national security, dangerous/hazardous items such as diseased fruits and vegetables, and goods made with slave labor or pirated goods that violate the intellectual property rights of American citizens.
You missed the fact that when all those things are cheaper, we have more money left to spend on things like health care and legal services.
For a generation or so our government has shown that it lacks the will, the competence, and probably the intention to enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. This is the default of both political parties and all three branches of government--most clearly the legislative and the executive. To pretend to have laws is one way a government demonstrates lack of legitimacy.
We live in a sillyocracy and and ought not to be surprised when Mr Hyman advocates ignoring the law. Nor should we criticize him for taking that position, for he may be taking a closer look at reality than most of the rest of us. We should however acknowledge that the depth and breadth of political dishonesty that we are confronted with in regard to immigration may be unprecedented. My prediction is of course that the bill if enacted, will be underfunded, not administered according to its terms, and for practical purposes, unenforced.
I fail to see how anyone can talk about this bill without mentioning the likelihood that it is no more than a sham, even though large numbers of the well-intentioned elected (I will give them this) may sincerely believe they are doing something other than rounding up votes.
Houston Lawyer got it right. I add that only by demonstrating the will to enforce the law we have (What, by the way, is the reason for the rush to legislate? No sarcasm intended: I have forgotten.) and then deliberately debating legislative improvements, can the congress and president produce an honest, workable result.
Sorry to have been so long winded
Assertions by propagandists for the bill that "we can't control our borders; we can't deport people" are simply false. We've done both in the past with great success.
The predictable (indeed, undisputed) effects of the bill would be lower wages and higher taxes for American citizens plus higher crime in American cities. It is also likely that passage of the bill would encourage a great increase in attempted illegal entry, by people hoping to claim the benefit of this amnesty or get in line for the next one.
I think the bill would have another effect, though this one is harder to quantify. The best aspects of American culture, such as our political institutions based on equal citizenship, our eagerness for scientific and technical advances, and our relatively-free economy, have already been severely weakened by demagogues playing to socio-economic divisions within the country. We have failed to integrate most of the immigrants of the last 40 years into mainstream American society--rather leaving them bunched together in insular and sometimes hostile subcultures with demagogic leaders who seek special benefits such as "affirmative action" in their names. The pending bill would accelerate the influx of unassimilated immigrants from cultures far more hierarchical and less respectful of learning than our own. It is likely that (not from any evil motive, you understand) such people would have a baleful influence on our culture if they were invited to live here.
(I am sure that some of you will regurgitate propaganda to the effect that immigrants don't lower (and may even raise!) American wages or living standards. So let me correct you in advance. The avowed purpose of the bill's "worker visa" provisions is to reduce wages in the US. (When the President says "jobs Americans won't do," he leaves off the vital words "for the wages employers wish to pay.") At the same time, we know that amnesty (legalization) for poor illegal aliens will make them eligible for even more welfare benefits, financed by taxes on the American middle class. Anyone who doesn't see their wages reduced by competition from immigrants will see their taxes increased to pay welfare to other immigrants and support to (often Black) Americans displaced from employment by immigrants. Many will see both. None of this is in doubt. On the other hand, supposed "complementarity" between immigrant labor and native labor promoting US economic growth (which could, in the long run, improve living American living standards) is in doubt.
(If you think an large supply of low-wage labor necessarily promotes economic growth, please explain why Bangladesh, for example, is so poor.
(Finally, to anyone who types the words "family reunification" I retort: the US imposes no barriers to family reunification. None. Illegal aliens may go home to their families any time they wish. The US does not prevent anyone from exiting the country. Anyone who leaves his family abroad to sneak into the US is solely responsible for any feelings of longing which may trouble him or his kin. I hope that the next time one of you says the US is "dividing families" the words taste as putrid in your mouth as they sound in our ears.)
What facts are you referring to? From the anti-immigration folks, I haven't heard very many facts at all. I've seen no hard evidence that immigration hurts the economy. And there is - at best - mixed evidence about whether immigrants drag down wages of the unskilled.
What problem are we trying to solve? Is there a problem at all?
To Anonymous Attorney:
Fair enough. I'm not sure the govt. should be funding those things for immigrants or citizens.
Having dealt with INS and later with DHS ICE, I have to say that incompetence and laziness that have been a rule there make a very bad combination with almost unchecked authority its officers have. Most Americans have never dealt with those agencies, but those who had frequently compare them to the most hated agency of the US government - IRS. The laws under which they operate are similarly complicated and self-contradictory, the officers have the same level of responsibility for their words and actions (close to zero), the only appeal goes through special courts if at all, etcetera.
I am by no means an "enforcement first" supporter, and I think there is something to the 24-hour idea. However I believe that the first step to fixing the problem would be simplifying the system, not making it more complicated, and clearing the backlogs. And the whole "qualified" H1-B program as it stands needs to be super-simple, I think - no quotes, no wait time past the document verification.
Note, that all of the above is an informed, but definitely biased opinion of a perso who had almost qualified to the title of "illegal" prior to 9/11 and Patriot Act.
Current estimates are 10-20 million already here. I think Border Patrol's Arizona sector stops about 100,000 per year (and estimates are it only catches 10-20%).
The rancher just had his 10th drive thru of the year. That's when drug smugglers take stolen trucks (usually 3+ at a time) and simply plow cross country thru his fences to get to a highway. Large areas of his land are covered, just covered, in litter discarded by crossers.
If caught, the illegals sign a "voluntary return" form, and are bussed back to the border. The smart people smugglers have a simple deal: if BP catches us, I'll race away, you stay and get caught. Then we rendezvous at a fixed point on the other side of the border, and come back tommorrow night.
A major risk is that gangs work the border and rob the illegals. Sometimes they even work on this side of the border. Just had a group of illegals shot up, and couple killed, north of here (about 80 miles north of the border).
The Mexican government wholeheartedly supports this. They produce pamphlets on how to do it (I've got one). An agency, Groupo Beta, busses illegals from a town about 15 miles south of the border, to the border itself. Illegals in the US are a major source of hard currency there. I saw an article in the local paper relating how some rural Mexican towns are essentially depopulated of adult males (as in 90% gone) because they've come to the US.
Another article was devoted to strife between drug runners and people runners, the former being much better armed. Some drug cartels drive people smugglers off their routes (in one case shooting and burning up their cars) because they fear they attract BP. Others will let them use their routes for a price. Still others let them use their routes, but only if they go first. If BP doesn't catch them, the road is clear for the drug trucks. If it does catch them, it'll be pinned down transporting them, and then the drug shipments can go thru safely.
The federal district judges have pointed out that if anyone wants to get serious (i.e., criminally charging the illegals, or at least formally deporting them), they'd have to double or treble the number of judges here. I mean, 100,000 cases a year in a court that now has, as I recall, four or five judges...
I can understand them wanted to get out of that hellhole. Only the major cities (esp. resort towns trying to attract tourists) have water that can be safely drunk. Entering Tijuana, a fairly major border town, you pass an open sewer, and your nose tells you you have arrived. The government is a strange mixture of the worst aspects of socialism, oligarchy, and corruption, with the last predominating. My law prof. (who practiced there) said the largest financial institution in the country is the national pawn shop.
The Mexican government's support of this puzzled me for a time. I mean, if you have people willing to work, why not bring the work to them? Then you'd get their tax revenue instead of the US getting it. I suppose it's a matter of -- to do that would require giving up at least some corruption, and a change in mental attitude (economic success = exploitation by the wealthy) that they aren't prepared to accept. So best way to keep things going is to ship your workers to another country.
I think there is an attitude there that is sort of pre-industrial revolution. The rich are VERY rich. It is acceptable to be very rich if you are essentially a rich family from the old days, have lots of land, that manner of thing. But someone who wants to achieve wealth by commerce is ... obviously exploiting someone, a shifty sort of character, a parasite on society. Ask people to invest and, as my prof. said, the reaction is not "let me look at it, I might get in on the ground floor," but rather "it must be a scam: if it was for real you would have had your family and friends invest and kept it all to yourself."
Add to it communicable disease that make healthcare fun and exciting for the practitioners and populace at large
and honestly, what's the rush? why not enforce the laws we have now first (esp those vs employers), and see if that results in curbing demand for illegal labor (which drives this entire phenomenon)?
ps - those expressing concern re Latin American poverty should read a piece in the Wa Post today re Honduras - it notes that $$ sent back from Hondurans in the US helps, but the absence of so many working age men brings many costs too. "let them all in" is no cure all for 3rd world poverty, even assuming that such policies would not prove to overburden the goose that lays the golden egg.
Lots of people seem to blame the ’86 immigration reform for creating problems today. I tend to doubt that. The real issue causing today’s illegal immigration is the poor job the Mexican government has done in providing a growing economy. It’s really hard to keep people from moving when life is much easier 100 miles to the north.
I also think that a second reason for the increased border crossing is the better infrastructure in Northern Mexico. Back as late as the 80’s the number of paved roads connecting cities was pretty small. However the need to move goods (thinks to NAFTA) created lots of nice roads, virtually all of which has pretty good bus service.
I think I’m one of the few people remaining that thinks that the current system isn’t so bad. Right now there’s some amount of screening for new Americans due to the rigors of being illegal – “in the shadows” if you will. A person willing to work illegally will have a fairly rough life with the migrant, low paid lifestyle. However have a baby here and the kid gets automatic citizenship. Isn’t that what the much earlier migrations to the US were about? Sign on for a hard, rather crappy life so that the next generation can have a better one. There’s something Darwinian there – those that can’t stand the hard work and lack of respect go back to Mexico; those who can raise the next generation of Americans.
The changes in the ‘chain migration’ are long overdue. Bringing brothers and cousins tend to allow people to come without skills. I know some people think this isn’t changed enough, but in this case ‘good’ isn’t the opposite of ‘great’. Getting half a loaf is better than none.
There is apparently new evidence of negative effects, see:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html
It seems to me that whether one like this or that provision of this incredible mish-mash, it should be opposed on the grounds that it has been prepared in secret and is not going through the usual committee and amendment process. It's like a prepackaged bankruptcy with the judge in on the prepackage design instead of acting as an independent reviewer.
I don't often agree with Thorley but he's certainly correct that the big corporations are not really the issue here. My liberal friends need to bend their argument just a little here to fit the facts. Plenty of bedrock Republican party supporters with a pan in the fire. On the other hand, Thorley, you ought equally to dispute Eddy's complementary theory that Dems are in this to cultivate future voters. Not exactly a quick return on the political investment.
John425: Maybe, just maybe, the country is not the same as your house. Let me try an intermediate category. What if somebody came into the hotel you were living in through the back door? What then? O calamity! Gracious!
Frankly I'm astonished so many people haven't bothered to keep up with the single most important bill in the past 100+ years.
You said, " I'm not sure the govt. should be funding those things for immigrants or citizens."
But, in fact, they are funding those things. You cannot wish this away. As the laws currently exists, we are required to fund these programs. And make no mistake, lower wage workers are net users of gov't programs - they take more from the system than they give.
I am distressed that this is not part of the discussion in the Senate. Taxpayers will be compelled by government to subsidize the cheap labor through increased healthcare costs, earned income tax credit, etc. Those cheap products and services will not be so cheap for the taxpayers in the long run.
Why would businesses that hired illegals, hire pseudo-legals?
Are we really to believe that by passing the Shamnesty bill, that we will get real border enforcement? Real workplace identification? Someone has to be smoking some pretty dank weed to think they can create a "tamper proof" ID.
The government doesn't enforce the laws that are currently on the books, why would they enforce the new laws? Whats to stop them from passing this piece of crap and then saying "Well we tried", its like the Wimpy character from Popeye who will gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today. Yet he never will, and the government never will enforce the new laws. 22 Senators currently on the hill were there in 86 to pass the first wave of Amnesty, they lied then, and they are lying now.
When it comes to workplace enforcement, "investigations" into illegal workers being present average 22 months to complete. Yet the government knows what businesses are hiring illegals, and has a top 100 list for businesses with workers whose SSN's are fraudulent, furthermore many state/local agencies are culprits as well:
The fact that this bills supporters are doing everything in their power to ram this through without any sunlight on the bill what so ever should be a massive red flag to anyone who believes in fair and open disclosure within our government.
What do they have to hide?
IMHO the costs incurred from social programs will be steep, particularly since this amnesty allows for unrestrained chain immigration of relatives all of whom can become eligible for social programs, but the I'd suggest the real costs will be in public education.
The single most disturbing aspect of this amnesty is that there are literally no limits placed on the number given Z-visas. Whether it's 10 million or 200 million, no limits are actually declared within the bill itself. And as yet nobody really knows how many illegals there are now and how many will be able to qualify based on loose requirements and/or fraudulent documents.
There are about 50 million public education students in America today at a cost of about $500 billion a year. Add another 50 million new Z-visa students, few of whom I assume are fluent in English, and it'll cost at least $500 billion a year to educate them on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars it'll cost to build the facilities to educate them in and the bi-lingual teachers necessary to teach them.
I suppose I shouldn't respond since I've not decided there's full symmetry. But clearly a theory of symmetry isn't going to convince somebody that already has a point of view against people crossing borders. On the other hand, are you serious that the real or valid objection to this immigration is the cost of government services? That's amusing.
What I saw was a culture that has bred a lack of respect for the rule of law. Other people will disagree, but I believe this lack of respect is what dooms Mexico's ability to fix the corruption that is rampant in their government and political systems.
People who sneak across the border bring this lack of respect for the rule of law with them. If they respected the law, they wouldn't have come across illegally in the first place. They continue to show this lack of respect by using forged documentation to apply for jobs that they aren't legally entitled to.
Ask any of them and they will come up with 100 excuses to justify their actions.
I don't believe in any system where people who came to this country illegally are allowed to stay permanently without some sort of real hardship being imposed upon them.
If we really need a guest worker program, then I believe that these people should have first crack at eligibility for it, but I don't believe they should be able to enroll in the program while staying in the US. They should have to go back to their country of origin and apply there.
Changing our laws so that it doesn't inconveniance them doesn't allow them to demonstrate that they have learned the importance of respect for the law.
I have a friend who did oil exploration down there, decades ago. The going rate for labor was 25 cents per day. His (American) employer said that was BS, he wasn't going to pay anyone less than a dollar a day. (In modern money, those figures would probably be about $2 and $8). The local gentry decided he was ruining their market for cheap labor, and hired a hit man to kill them. Fortunately, the hit man was a bad shot, and my friend was not. Eventually the employer negotiated out his grievances with the local wealthy. That's what I mean about the system there being a combination of the worst aspects of plutocracy, socialism, and corruption.
The cons are too interested in attacking the liberals and the liberals delight in taunting the cons. With all that fun to be had, we need to leave the shady stuff to the professionals. Anyway, your politicians are even more corrupt than mine, so why don'ya fix yours first and stop complaining about mine?
Now, let's go fight about something, o greatsatan.
On a lighter note, if Mexicans want in this country so bad, why don't we just overthrow the Mexican government and make Mexico part of the U.S. If they want in so badly, let's take them. Been a long time since anyone in the Western world did some expansion-like conquering.
your post has me confused, care to expand upon it?
- For any country that sends 100K immigrants, legal or illegal to the USA (or some % of its source population) in a given year, that country's ambassador must go in front of congress, and give a "Top 10 reasons my country sucks and people want to leave" speech, and face questioning. Said ambassador's speech must be broadcast on all major (and all state owned) TV/radio networks in the source country during primetime, on at least 5 consecutive days.
- This applies to all countries that have passed the trigger level since 1986, the date of the last immigration bill.
Seriously, the more consideration as to why the other countries have problems, the better.
I'm being fancy, I suppose. Apologies.
Just taking myself as an example, I don't hardly know what is in the bill, and I expect the bill is a hash with all sorts of benefits for inside players. I find many of the counter-proposals made here and elsewhere just shy of insane (too). In the middle of it all, you come in and propose that we get something decent, uncorrupted, and clear out of a Bush-Kennedy coalition. The mind boggles.
My comment was that there's way too much bad faith between leftside people (which I think I am) and rightside people (don't know if that's you) for us to coalesce on an open-gov't plank, instead of using planks to hit each other with.
Since I'm still in an obscure mood, that might not help. Don't be afraid to give up on understanding and plunge on ahead!
I think there is more bad faith between Government and the people than there is between the two parties. Both parties seem to want this bill, 80% of the population does not.
As to (1), it seems unrealistic, if not impossible, to simply "round up" all the illegal immigrants and ship them off to their native land. First, how many years would it take to apprehend, process and transport the millions of illegal immigrants. Second, contrary to what's been reported on this thread and in other places, not all the illegal immigrants are Mexicans. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if well less than half of all illegal immigrants are from Mexico. Third, there is the whole question about the effect, if any, the absence of five to ten percent of the labor force would have on our economy, specifically in the areas of agriculture, personal services, construction, landscaping, etc. I recognize that people have strong and passionate views, but seriously, what is the plan for executing this mass evacuation?
The "what are we going to do to fix it" seems to be the bigger problem in my mind. A government, if it so choses, certainly should have the ability to (a) control its borders; and (b) know who is present within its borders. Of course, this is purely a policy choice. Contrary to what others have said, I don't think conrolling borders is one of the most important functions of government. The idea of effective border control is a relatively modern one; for most of history, people came and went from one country to another with very little trouble.
If we want to stop or significantly reduce the flow of illegal immigration, then we have to have better control over the thing that attracts immigrants to the U.S., mainly the ability to work and make money. As long as there are jobs and a better living here, no length of fence is going to stop people from coming. I'd like to see some more policy discussion about effective ways of controlling or limiting employment for undocumented workers. A uniform, national ID/work authorization card? I imagine that sends shivers down the spine of libertarians, no?
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=335
I think it might clear up some falsehoods that have been thrown around. (Like asserting that this bill is opposed by more than 3/4 of Americans. It ain't. Or saying that a majority of the country is against "amnesty." Wrong again.)
No it does not. Why would anyone actually believe that any enforcement would take place this time? It certainly did not in 1986, and there has been no will whatsoever for decades to enforce any limits on illegals. Anyone who believes that anything but wholesale amnesty will occur is an historically illiterate fool.
From a libertarian perspective, if you want to open the borders, you must get rid of the welfare state. Good luck with that. Politicians are looking to create a massive new client state and impose the financial burden on already overburdened taxpayers. This entire farce makes me sick with its bad faith and obvious deception.
It doesn't say more than 3/4 are against, but it does say less than 1/4 are in favor. And chances are, if those 28% that said they didn't know knew more about the bill, they would probably say no.
1) The rushed process and weird procedural moves signal to me that something nefarious is occurring. It could be the best bill in the world, but I would oppose it because the proponents are playing games and I want them to stop. I expect that the idea behind the games is to give something to well-organized pressure groups before the less organized mass of the population can put together a coherent opposition. (When do legislative games have any other function?) The Senate and its arcane procedures are supposed to slow down debate and ensure that things receive full consideration. This does not appear to be happening here.
2)OF COURSE we should worry that the government has no intent to control the borders in the future. Enough people have brought this up already, but anyone who can remember the Reagan years will see this as a rerun. And rightly so.
3) The fundamental responsibility for Mexican poverty lies in Mexico. A lot of Americans are upset at being asked to compensate for the failures of the Mexican political class to deal with that country's internal issues, as well as by the fact that the class in question both uses migration as a safety valve and encourages its population to place the blame for its own failings on us. Mexico is a rich country by global standards and could be a lot richer if it got its act together, so there's really no excuse.
4) It's possible that taking the work to Mexico rather than bringing the workers to the US could help with this. If the border were to be enforced, employers who wanted access to cheap Mexican labor would have to put up with Mexican infrastructure and Mexican business laws. This would create a constituency for fixing a lot of the problems that are keeping Mexico poor and could ultimately raise wages there. Emmigration may raise wages there somewhat by reducing the number of people competing for jobs, but it does nothing to address low productivity and barriers to business formation. Those are the real problems.
5) A lot of us think it's bad that so many people have maids and gardeners these days. When did Americans stop mowing their own lawns? If you want to consume too far too much housing and land, as many families do these days, at least you should have to take care of it yourself.
6) Some professions (construction trades, for example) that used to pay enough to put their members into the middle class really ARE getting undercut by immigrant workers. These people have grounds to complain even if the immigrants are legal, but they should be hollering their heads off if the immigrants are illegal.
7) AND using bullhorns if the companies hiring those immigrants violate the still more laws -- and middle class norms -- by not paying Social Security tax or worker's comp. Also, if the employers aren't doing that, do you really think they are following OSHA rules, environmental laws, and local health and building codes? Once you start dismantling the social contract, what's to stop it all from being tossed away in the interest of lower costs?
8) Finally, the United States is a society and not just an economy. The society has a number of rules and expectations about what working life will be like, as well as about things like how the schools will function and how decisions affecting ordinary people will be made. A lot of these rules and expectations were built up over many decades, and a lot of them seem to be getting wiped out in just a few years. The fact that the changes might lead to more income for society as a whole is not the issue. If the changes result in redistribution (of cash AND of things like good neighborhoods and schools), which they certainly seem to do, and if they are shoved through by an insider-dominated process that seems to exclude ordinary citizens, then our political class is becoming as bad as Mexico's and we should give them a good thrashing.
Is the fundamental purpose of immigration law and/or control so that our economy can be optimized? I'm not entirely certain, but I'm guessing that is a no. The following may strike some as the words of a dilettante, but I don't care about the economic impact of umpteen-million illegal immigrant workers on: GDP, interest rates, inflation, minimum wage, etc ad nauseum. The US economy strikes me as relatively robust and able to respond to pretty significant forcings.
As one poster mentioned earlier, this first generation of illegal has it pretty crappy so that successive generations can have it good, read: they want a better life for their kids. I don't believe this is the case anymore, though it once was. Assimilation is the key, and it appears that the sole thrust of immigration apologists and supporters is to form a sub-culture that does not have to "suffer" as a non-citizen. See: how many languages at every gov't office, on signage, at private business, in various and sundry "neighborhoods"; programs to support illegals; an entire cottage industry of document experts producers...if there is a better life to be had here then why aren't THEY PURSUING IT? It has nothing to do with the life they can have, but the fleecing they can accomplish and benefits received with little or no responsibility and/or accountability.
From a pretty good movie: "America is advanced citizenship, you gotta want it bad".
At the risk of being labelled a, what was it, "Dobbsian"? Or criticized as a mean, ugly, hypocritical conservative, nay, capital-R Republican...send them back and make them come back legally. Time for a reset. Hard-boot. The processes are jammed and spooling big-time. There's procedures in place that seem to work pretty well for 3 of the 4 compass points in this country, sooo? We can wage pretty devastating war anywhere in the world; we can (allegedly) predict what the climate not only is doing now but how devastating it's going to be to us in the near future (down to the cm of sea rise and degree of temp change); the DMV in California can find you ANYWHERE (and I mean anywhere, live in a box and the postal guy will still visit you) in the State w/in two weeks if you are a minute late on paying registration fees...is it really that hard for us to defeat decidedly low-tek border crossings??? Crapsakes.
Oh, I'm supposed to talk about the bill, right? I don't support a "fine" for illegals that is first, obscenely low compared to legal immigration costs and second, is highly unlikely to be paid. From everything I've heard (or not heard), the bill does nothing to punish business (whether large or small) for providing the carrot and cover. All I'll say about the enforcement portion (fence, BP, etc) is CRAPSAKES! (see preceeding paragraph).
There's a reason it's called "illegal" immigration and there should be a punishment for it. Granted, deportation is probably not the best, or wasn't the best, but that was before the change (by several orders of magnitude) in the size of the illegal population. If they want to stay, every one of them should march to the other side of the border and stand in line and request to come into the country, legally, all fees and requirements attended to.
America is a land of 'equal opportunity' for everyone...which includes how you get here.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27775&pg=1
Nice poll, too bad it doesn't support your take on it.
The poll you cite is almost a month old, and doesn't really reflect what is in the current Amnesty bill.
Rassmusen polling data thats only a day or two old here Plus they link to other polls that back their assessment.
I wasn't thinking about the parties per se, but we partisans. In the immigration "debate", I think the conservative partisans have crazy ideas, the liberal partisans are kicking back enjoying the show, and the gov't is running amok as usual. No kudos to anyone.
Unlike many of my lib friends, I'm not keen on government by referendum/plebescite. I oughtta look at TZiese's data, but let me assert that 80% want to aggressively control the borders, 80% want landscaping and construction costs to stay low but 70% want to enforce labor laws, some 40% want to send their new neighbors away right now, and 99% do not know what is in the bill. Therefore, I can't attach much meaning to your suggestion that the Congress is opposing some collective will of the people.
bittern
That's called NAFTA.
And, it will give even more power to racial power groups and racial demagogues, which they too will use to push for more amnesties.
Regarding the bill itself, the provision allowing gang members to be legalized still remains in a slightly limited form; see my name's link.
And, as discussed here, someone could go from being a Mexican citizen here illegally on Monday to being enlisted in the U.S. Army on Wednesday. Not exactly a good thing when you actually, you know, think it through.