President outlines new immigration reform

[PSUColonel]

(Reuters) - Engaged in a fierce debate with Democrats over Iraq, President George W. Bush will seek momentum on Monday for an overhaul of U.S. immigration law with his second visit in a year to a major border crossing.

His trip to Yuma, Arizona, comes as the immigrant community worries about a new approach circulated among Republican lawmakers and Bush administration officials last week that appeared to be aimed at placating conservative opponents.

The idea called for a new "Z" visa that would allow immigrant workers to apply for three-year work permits. They would cost $3,500 each time they are renewed, a major expense for low-income workers.

A White House official said the visa concept was among ideas discussed by the administration and Republican lawmakers and was not a formal plan.

It was scorned by thousands of people who marched in Los Angeles on Saturday, demanding government action to allow an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to become citizens.

Bush, ending a long Easter weekend at his Texas ranch, will visit the U.S.-Mexico border crossing at Yuma for the second time since May. It had been the site of massive incursions by illegal immigrants, prompting a major increase in border security.

Bush wants an immigration deal with congressional leaders by August. His proposals to find a way to put illegal immigrants in a guest-worker program to give them a legal status have generally had more support from Democrats than Republicans.

But whether Democrats will be in any mood to help Bush reach a deal is uncertain. He is locked in a battle with them over a $100 billion funding request to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his remarks, Bush is expected to cite failures in past immigration policy as a reason for a new approach.

A 1986 law made it illegal for employers to hire illegal immigrants, but it has not worked well because it is relatively easy to get fake documents and some employers hire in violation of the law.

[RedKingGold]

What does this have to do with the Easter Bunny?

[Subby]

So were are just assuming that everything you post is POL: and therefore doesn't need the prefix?

Okay JessePSUiak...

[BrianD]

So were are just assuming that everything you post is POL: and therefore doesn't need the prefix?

Okay JessePSUiak...

I can see where the thread title could be confusing...

[RedKingGold]

It could've been about the President of Finland. Who would really believe that our President could read, let alone outline?

[Subby]

My point is if he is only here to start threads about politics, then he can follow in the fine FOFC tradition of fucking off (see: Ewiak, Jesse and Capsi, Cum.)

If that isn't the case, than maybe he could differentiate which of his posts are political and which aren't by using the easy to remember POL: prefix.

[JPhillips]

Does this bill include tolls for the NAFTA superhighway?

[14ers]

A 1986 law made it illegal for employers to hire illegal immigrants, but it has not worked well because it is relatively easy to get fake documents and some employers hire in violation of the law.
I do not believe this. I believe more illegal immigrants are employed by companies that KNOW they are illegals, and are just looking to cut wages and avoid benifits, than those who mistakenly hire illegals thinking they are Americans.

Why Political leaders, like the Bush administration, are bending over backwards not to punish Employers is beyond me. If you want to seriously try to take a bite out of the illegal problem in the US, you must first start punishing the people who employ them.

[st.cronin]

Why Political leaders, like the Bush administration, are bending over backwards not to punish Employers is beyond me.

Its no more confusing than what is 2+2.

[lungs]

As an employer of Latinos, let me point out a few things from an employer's point of view

Here is a rundown of what happens when somebody new is hired:

1. All of our employees are required to have social security numbers, as is any legally employeed person in this country.

We've never had an employee (black, brown, white, green, or purple) that did not have a social security card or did not pay taxes.

2. All of our employee's information (I-9) is turned into the proper government agencies for processing.

3. Sometimes there are discrepenacies in social security information (obviously since they are using recycled numbers). The government at that point sends out a letter stating that the employee's social security number does not match the name. Then we are instructed that the employee must rectify the situation "in a reasonable amount of time."

4. This is where the big problem comes in. It is illegal to fire anybody on the basis of receiving this notice from the government. If we were to fire somebody on this basis and it turned out that they were a legal resident of this country we'd be opening ourselves up to major lawsuits.

Then the ambiguous wording of the notice does not help matters. Social Security does not follow up because they will gladly take the money they can get no matter if the person is here legally or illegally. That is the job of Homeland Security and to top it off, Homeland Security has a completely different set of protocols to follow than do other government agencies.

In any case, this whole issue as it stands is one big cluster fuck. The human smugglers are capitalizing and lining their pockets while our government has no idea of who is coming in.

I think the opposite sides of the spectrum are completely insane. The seal-the-border and end immigration crowd along with the free-for-all and open border crowd truly fail to grasp the reality of the situation.

Once you get past the ridiculous banter from both sides, there is a reasonable solution and thankfully President Bush has a grasp on this solution.

[BrianD]

I think the opposite sides of the spectrum are completely insane. The seal-the-border and end immigration crowd along with the free-for-all and open border crowd truly fail to grasp the reality of the situation.

Once you get past the ridiculous banter from both sides, there is a reasonable solution and thankfully President Bush has a grasp on this solution.

In most cases this is the "seal-the-border and end illegal immigration" crowd. Very few people want to see immigration go away, they just want to see people go through the proper channels.

[PSUColonel]

I do not believe this. I believe more illegal immigrants are employed by companies that KNOW they are illegals, and are just looking to cut wages and avoid benifits, than those who mistakenly hire illegals thinking they are Americans.

Why Political leaders, like the Bush administration, are bending over backwards not to punish Employers is beyond me. If you want to seriously try to take a bite out of the illegal problem in the US, you must first start punishing the people who employ them.

I agree completely with you. That is not my quote, it is from the article.

[flere-imsaho]

Once you get past the ridiculous banter from both sides, there is a reasonable solution and thankfully President Bush has a grasp on this solution.

I thought Bush's current solution is a guest worker pass that costs $3,500 to obtain. Where's a migrant who's likely to be doing agricultural work going to get that money?

Why Political leaders, like the Bush administration, are bending over backwards not to punish Employers is beyond me. If you want to seriously try to take a bite out of the illegal problem in the US, you must first start punishing the people who employ them.

There's an argument to be made (and I'm not making this argument, right now, because I'm not sure of the evidence behind it) that certain industries, such as agriculture, can only continue to exist by paying their employees so little, and so if you take away their labor pool, you'll cause these industries considerable harm. I wouldn't mind hearing from your take on this, lungs.

[Buccaneer]

My point is if he is only here to start threads about politics, then he can follow in the fine FOFC tradition of fucking off (see: Ewiak, Jesse and Capsi, Cum. and Bigglesworth, Mr.)

If that isn't the case, than maybe he could differentiate which of his posts are political and which aren't by using the easy to remember POL: prefix.

Fixed.

[cartman]

I do not believe this. I believe more illegal immigrants are employed by companies that KNOW they are illegals, and are just looking to cut wages and avoid benifits, than those who mistakenly hire illegals thinking they are Americans.

Why Political leaders, like the Bush administration, are bending over backwards not to punish Employers is beyond me. If you want to seriously try to take a bite out of the illegal problem in the US, you must first start punishing the people who employ them.

It is WAY more complicated than that.

There are several major industries in the US that are propped up by the government looking the other way. Migrant harvesters and in-the-trenches construction work are two major ones. If you look, the upper level management of these groups are two of the biggest contributors to political campaigns as a percentage of revenue. And they fund both parties almost equally. Reagan, who is considered a near god by many who are forcefully against immigration, championed and signed into law the largest immigrant amnesty bill in history. The politicos are not going to piss off major contributors to their campaigns.

A sudden crackdown and deportation of illegal immigrants would more than likely drive food prices up sharply, and cause large construction delays nationwide.

In the area around where I live, illegal immigrants are the preferred source of labor, and it is not just because of the lower wages. The work ethic and quality of work in most cases is superior to that of the American workers. I've heard numerous times that they can count on the guys from Mexico doing a good job and finish on time with little or no supervision, and that is not the usual result when using American workers.

There always will be illegal immigration into the US. Having 7,500 miles of borders with your two neighbors means you will not be able to stop people getting through, fence or not. The prudent course of action to take is to figure out the best way to manage the situation, taking into account the economic impact, legal impact, and personal impact.

[lungs]

I do believe that $3500 is pretty steep. I'm not sure if that was the renewal fee or was that the original guest worker fee and renewal fee? Regardless, right now the going rate to get smuggled by a coyote is around $2000-3000.

I'm not sure if some remember any of my previous posts on this topic, but my line of work is agricultural, specifically dairy farming. I'm guessing the low wages are a bigger issue of a necessity for produce farmers in California and such (ie: lettuce pickers). For dairy farmers, especially here in Wisconsin, it has become a culmination of factors that have forced us to turn toward mostly Latino labor.

In the not so distant past, most farms in the Midwest completely supplied the labor required to sustain operations completely through family. Maybe a hired hand or two. The scope of a farm's operations were small enough that family and perhaps one or two other people would be enough. It was enough to feed the family and make a modest living.

Basically what happened was that California and other western states were able to produce milk in a more efficient manner than we were in the Midwest. These California dairies were able to milk thousands of cows on one farm while we were piddling around milking 50-60 cows on each farm in the Midwest.

Basically, we had a choice here in the Midwest and a lot of us smaller farmers milking 50-60 cows had to get big or get out. What type of labor were the Western dairies using? I believe you can answer that yourself.

So faced with task of growing our farms or face going out of business, many chose to keep with it and grow. The problem with growing and the fact that not too many people want to have 10 kids anymore (much less the questionable ethics of working children hard like many farmers did in the past) was that there needed to be labor to help these farms grow.

This would be where finding the labor and pay would come in. In a fairly rural setting where the cost of living is not all that high, our supervisors make $15-16/hour and our entry-level workers make $9-11/hour. That is very favorable to many factories and such in our area. It wouldn't be as well paying as most construction jobs though, especially union. There are lower paying factory jobs in the area that Americans are more than happy to take.

The problem is the hours involved in dairy farming. We are working with living, breathing animals and certain things need to be done to them at certain times. Each cow is milked three times a day so that means we need to be milking cows almost round the clock. We can't just shut down our "factory" for weekends and holidays. Somebody needs to be there and somebody needs to make sure these animals are being tended to.

Other lines of work that may even pay less or that pay in line with how much we pay have perks like weekends off and holidays off. Don't get me wrong, our employees get time off, but a lot of times time off comes during the week. Not to mention, you are less likely to get covered in manure.

So it became hard to find anybody to work and it became hard to ignore these people that were practically pounding your door down looking to work. So we hired them just like any other employee. We've filed all the proper paperwork. They pay their taxes. The laws are horribly written on how to deal with any possibility they may not be a legal worker.

You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. A guest worker program would go a long way in my situation anyway. I can't comment on other industries but I'm not sure who's going to work at these packing plants.

Of course we could just import all of our food. But do we want to put our food into the hands of the very foreigners we are trying to keep out?

Sorry for the long rant, but this is obviously a subject that has a lot of implications for me professionally :)

[Groundhog]

It is WAY more complicated than that.

There are several major industries in the US that are propped up by the government looking the other way. Migrant harvesters and in-the-trenches construction work are two major ones. If you look, the upper level management of these groups are two of the biggest contributors to political campaigns as a percentage of revenue. And they fund both parties almost equally. Reagan, who is considered a near god by many who are forcefully against immigration, championed and signed into law the largest immigrant amnesty bill in history. The politicos are not going to piss off major contributors to their campaigns.

A sudden crackdown and deportation of illegal immigrants would more than likely drive food prices up sharply, and cause large construction delays nationwide.

In the area around where I live, illegal immigrants are the preferred source of labor, and it is not just because of the lower wages. The work ethic and quality of work in most cases is superior to that of the American workers. I've heard numerous times that they can count on the guys from Mexico doing a good job and finish on time with little or no supervision, and that is not the usual result when using American workers.

There always will be illegal immigration into the US. Having 7,500 miles of borders with your two neighbors means you will not be able to stop people getting through, fence or not. The prudent course of action to take is to figure out the best way to manage the situation, taking into account the economic impact, legal impact, and personal impact.

Cartman, please don't complicate the issue with your facts and reasoning! ;)

[PSUColonel]

I thought Bush's current solution is a guest worker pass that costs $3,500 to obtain. Where's a migrant who's likely to be doing agricultural work going to get that money?



There's an argument to be made (and I'm not making this argument, right now, because I'm not sure of the evidence behind it) that certain industries, such as agriculture, can only continue to exist by paying their employees so little, and so if you take away their labor pool, you'll cause these industries considerable harm. I wouldn't mind hearing from your take on this, lungs.



and if you are correct, it may once again be time for more welfare reform. That's my answer.

[sterlingice]

My point is if he is only here to start threads about politics, then he can follow in the fine FOFC tradition of fucking off (see: Ewiak, Jesse and Capsi, Cum.)

Wouldn't that be "Cum, Capsi"? :p

SI

[BrianD]

In the area around where I live, illegal immigrants are the preferred source of labor, and it is not just because of the lower wages. The work ethic and quality of work in most cases is superior to that of the American workers. I've heard numerous times that they can count on the guys from Mexico doing a good job and finish on time with little or no supervision, and that is not the usual result when using American workers.


Out of curiosity, are the American workers being compared union workers, non-union workers, or both? I'm curious if union status makes a difference.

[Karlifornia]

If the Mexicans were smart, they'd tap into our water supply and give everyone raging bouts of Montezuma's Revenge...it would be sort of like smallpox' less-deadly, gastrically-explosive cousin.

[Glengoyne]

My point is if he is only here to start threads about politics, then he can follow in the fine FOFC tradition of fucking off (see: Ewiak, Jesse and Capsi, Cum.)

If that isn't the case, than maybe he could differentiate which of his posts are political and which aren't by using the easy to remember POL: prefix.

I'm seriously thinking that anyone who can't discern a bit of Political content from the title of this thread (and really most others) could stand to spend more time improving their reading comprehension skills than fooling around on a web site insulting others.

[cartman]

Out of curiosity, are the American workers being compared union workers, non-union workers, or both? I'm curious if union status makes a difference.

There aren't many unions in Texas, outside of the Teamsters for shipping and packaging, UAW at the auto places, and the unions related to the airline industry. It is my understanding that there aren't any well organized unions in Texas associated with the jobs that are the main employers of illegal immigrants

[Neon_Chaos]

<table align="center"><tbody><tr><td align="center">Give me your tired, your poor,</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, </td></tr><tr><td align="center">The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. </td></tr><tr><td align="center">Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: </td></tr><tr><td align="center">I lift my lamp beside the golden door.</td></tr></tbody></table>

[flere-imsaho]

and if you are correct, it may once again be time for more welfare reform. That's my answer.

I invite you to read the posts by cartman & lungs, just above your post.

And thanks, lungs, for following-up like that. I've always found your posts on the subject to be very enlightening.

[BrianD]

There aren't many unions in Texas, outside of the Teamsters for shipping and packaging, UAW at the auto places, and the unions related to the airline industry. It is my understanding that there aren't any well organized unions in Texas associated with the jobs that are the main employers of illegal immigrants

Good to know, thanks for the follow-up.

[Glengoyne]

I'm with lungs. I think that anyone who is steadfastly against a guest worker program, is simply naive to the reality that exists for agriculture. The whole ag economy is right now based on relatively cheap labor. Not near as cheap as it used to be, but that is a good thing. It makes sense to provide for a mechanism to allow people who want to do these jobs into the country.

I'm not in favor of a prohibitively large fee like $3500. I just don't think that is reasonable, even with the most forgiving payment schedule I can imagine.

[PSUColonel]

I invite you to read the posts by cartman & lungs, just above your post.

And thanks, lungs, for following-up like that. I've always found your posts on the subject to be very enlightening.


Ok agreed. So let's suppose we have a guest worker program. While it may satisfy our need for cheap labor, does it not open another can of worms as far as national security is concerned?

[lungs]

I invite you to read the posts by cartman & lungs, just above your post.

And thanks, lungs, for following-up like that. I've always found your posts on the subject to be very enlightening.

No problem. I just think it's in everybody's interests to get something reasonable done with a guest worker program. Right now, there are agriculture-specific regulations that make it HARDER for farmers to get guest workers than service industries. Actually, pretty much impossible. Of course those were written 30 years ago and seem to be ass backwards if you ask me.

And my trip to the states of Veracruz and Guererro in southern Mexico was probably the most enlightening experience I've had in my life. I specifically went to see where the people I employ come from. I certainly got all the answers I was looking for and then some on why they come here.

I could go on and on about the subject. But I think most would agree that the system right now is broken. The only question is how to fix it and some are just too stubborn to realize that us employers aren't all looking to drive down wages and screw the American worker. A very healthy portion of us simply don't have the labor pool to draw from. And that is based on the fact that a certain segment of the population is unemployable.

And my last point would be that the phenomenon of paying better wages to attract better employees also applies to the Latinos. Farms in my area that pay piss poor wages still get piss poor workers no matter where they come from or what language they speak.

[BrianD]

Ok agreed. So let's suppose we have a guest worker program. While it may satisfy our need for cheap labor, does it not open another can of worms as far as national security is concerned?

If Mexico hasn't invaded us yet with totally open borders, I don't think they will do it through a guest worker program. There would still be some sort of registration and tracking of these workers and the Mexican government is not going to want to see a stream of jobs for Mexican people go away so they should have some desire to help make it work smoothly.

[lungs]

Ok agreed. So let's suppose we have a guest worker program. While it may satisfy our need for cheap labor, does it not open another can of worms as far as national security is concerned?

Don't you think having a guest worker program would IMPROVE national security by knowing who and where everybody is? As it is right now, we don't even know who the hell these people are and where they are. Many are using fake names.

A guest worker program would be beneficial to national security, not a detriment. And the simple reason is that there is no way in hell a fence is going to stop the steady flow of illegals.

Ladders work pretty well. So do tunnels. You can't stop it. You can slow it down but there is no way in hell you can stop it short of deploying thousands of troops on the border to shoot anybody that tries to cross (I speculate some here may be in favor of that, though).

[Mo.Raider]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door
But realize these eloquent verses I speak
are before a jet airliner full of innocent people,
slammed into two large buildings screwing it up for everyone..

[flere-imsaho]

Ok agreed. So let's suppose we have a guest worker program. While it may satisfy our need for cheap labor, does it not open another can of worms as far as national security is concerned?

How does it open up a can of worms, exactly? I can think of at least three different ways you can contend that it does, each of which I can easily refute, but instead of me doing your work for you, why don't you convince me that you're not just parroting a right-wing talking point and that you've actually thought about this.

So, how, specifically, does a guest worker program compromise national security? Give me examples, even if they're hypothetical.

[PSUColonel]

Don't you think having a guest worker program would IMPROVE national security by knowing who and where everybody is? As it is right now, we don't even know who the hell these people are and where they are. Many are using fake names.

A guest worker program would be beneficial to national security, not a detriment. And the simple reason is that there is no way in hell a fence is going to stop the steady flow of illegals.

Ladders work pretty well. So do tunnels. You can't stop it. You can slow it down but there is no way in hell you can stop it short of deploying thousands of troops on the border to shoot anybody that tries to cross (I speculate some here may be in favor of that, though).

No, because it becomes much easier for those who mean to do our nation harm to get here in a LEGAL fashion. In other words, we might know who's here, but that doesn't stop those who mean to do us harm anyway. I'm not saying these same people couldn't get here without a guest worker program, but what I am saying is that a guest worker program would make it that much easier. Just so people are clear, I'm not saying I'm totally opposed to a guest worker program, but rather I am simply pointing out the potential pitfalls of this idea.

[JonInMiddleGA]

(I speculate some here may be in favor of that, though).

Speculate no longer, you can rest assured that's true.

Although I personally lean toward the use of claymores & the old "bouncing betty" as part of the equation.

[flere-imsaho]

No, because it becomes much easier for those who mean to do our nation harm to get here in a LEGAL fashion. In other words, we might know who's here, but that doesn't stop those who mean to do us harm anyway. I'm not saying these same people couldn't get here without a guest worker program, but what I am saying is that a guest worker program would make it that much easier. Just so people are clear, I'm not saying I'm totally opposed to a guest worker program, but rather I am simply pointing out the potential pitfalls of this idea.

The 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally, although under false pretences.

Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. citizen.

The Unabomber was (is) a U.S. citizen.

Try again.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Its no more confusing than what is 2+2.

What, are you trying to confuse the President even more? :D

[PSUColonel]

The 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally, although under false pretences.

Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. citizen.

The Unabomber was (is) a U.S. citizen.

Try again.



While you are factually correct, you are also being totally irresponsible with this comment.

[lungs]

No, because it becomes much easier for those who mean to do our nation harm to get here in a LEGAL fashion. In other words, we might know who's here, but that doesn't stop those who mean to do us harm anyway. I'm not saying these same people couldn't get here without a guest worker program, but what I am saying is that a guest worker program would make it that much easier. Just so people are clear, I'm not saying I'm totally opposed to a guest worker program, but rather I am simply pointing out the potential pitfalls of this idea.

Let me point out a pitfall of not having a guest worker program then. If agriculture doesn't have the labor it requires, we will be forced to import our food to avoid a food shortage. I think the terrorists would have a much easier time tainting our food supply if they are able to do it in another country and perhaps have even far more reaching consequences than even a 9/11 attack would in terms of casualties.

America wants cheap and safe food and I'm pretty well convinced that no guest worker program will definitely eliminate the cheap part and as a consequence, may cause some food safety concerns.

There is a bill before Congress that is a specific guest worker program for Agricultural workers. Hopefully they can get it passed.

[lungs]

Speculate no longer, you can rest assured that's true.

Although I personally lean toward the use of claymores & the old "bouncing betty" as part of the equation.


I will admit, I did have you in mind when I made that comment. :)

[flere-imsaho]

While you are factually correct, you are also being totally irresponsible with this comment.

Explain.

Also, I'm amused that being "factually correct" is also "irresponsible" in your world.

[14ers]

The 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally, although under false pretences.

Wrong!

Three of the 9/11 hijackers were in the country illegally on expired visas and six of them were in the country with no information. Only 4 out of 13 hijackers were in the country legally.

[JPhillips]

Wrong!

Three of the 9/11 hijackers were in the country illegally on expired visas and six of them were in the country with no information. Only 4 out of 13 hijackers were in the country legally.

I don't have all the information on this, but saying they entered the country legally and that their Visas had expired are not mutually exclusive.

[PSUColonel]

Explain.

Also, I'm amused that being "factually correct" is also "irresponsible" in your world.

It is irresponsible to think that the majority of those perpatrating terrorist attacks against American targets/interests are American born, or even to a little lesser extent American citizens. I don't presume you are so dumb as not to realize this either. You simply just like causing friction here for some reason...especially when it comes to me personally.

[beargrowlz]

I'm strongly in favor of a guest worker program. I am a social worker and many, perhaps even most, of my poor black and white clients, simply won't take the dirty, hard work jobs that illegals are currently filling here in Georgia. That's work in the poultry plants (which pays far better than TANF and Foodstamps combined), peach picking, etc.

It's a dirty little secret, and politically incorrect to agree with, but Vincente Fox was right when he said Mexicans were needed in the United States because they take the jobs blacks won't even take. He should have added whites as well, but the point is the same.

A well put together guest worker program which allows foreign workers to traverse the border in an organized, well documented manner would best serve everyone. It makes them taxpayers, it addresses security concerns because we'd be able to know who they were and where they were, it provides American business with the labor it needs and it keeps the price of products in the United States down.

[flere-imsaho]

Three of the 9/11 hijackers were in the country illegally on expired visas and six of them were in the country with no information. Only 4 out of 13 hijackers were in the country legally.

I fail to see the point here. There are plenty of people who enter the country legally and illegally. A guest worker program isn't going to change this substantially. Plus, motivated terrorists are going to find a way to enter the country, guest worker program or not. Additionally, you're not even considering American-born terrorists, whether they be independent (Unabomber), acting with other Americans (McVeigh), or recruited by foreign agents (John Walker).

The fact is that all 13 of the hijackers walked through immigration with information that was sufficient to satisfy local immigration officials. If you have a beef with immigration documentation, I would think it would be with the lax documentation surrounding temporary visas, such as visitors or students visas. As lungs has pointed out, the proposed guest worker program calls for significantly more documentation and tracking than any of these programs do. It is, in fact, much safer for the country than the existing methods of entry.

[flere-imsaho]

It is irresponsible to think that the majority of those perpatrating terrorist attacks against American targets/interests are American born, or even to a little lesser extent American citizens.

You didn't read what I wrote. The terrorists I mentioned were either American citizens or entered the country legally.

As I've asked you many times before, what is your argument, specifically? Convince me you've actually thought about this, and you aren't just parroting talk show talking points.

You simply just like causing friction here for some reason...especially when it comes to me personally.

Cut the persecution complex, crybaby.

[flere-imsaho]

No, because it becomes much easier for those who mean to do our nation harm to get here in a LEGAL fashion.

Except that it doesn't, actually. The proposed guest worker program provides for considerably more scrutiny, documentation & tracking than the current visa programs.

In other words, we might know who's here, but that doesn't stop those who mean to do us harm anyway.

If you're that paranoid, then we shouldn't let anyone into the country, right? And while we're at it, we should deport or lock up anyone who exhibits any antisocial tendencies whatsoever as well, right?

I'm not saying these same people couldn't get here without a guest worker program, but what I am saying is that a guest worker program would make it that much easier.

Much easier? Much easier than flying into JFK, telling the authorities you're here to see the sites of New York for a week, and then doing whatever it was you were sent to do?

Just so people are clear, I'm not saying I'm totally opposed to a guest worker program, but rather I am simply pointing out the potential pitfalls of this idea.

Any proposal on any topic has potential pitfalls. What you're failing to do here is even rudimentary risk analysis.

[Crapshoot]

It is WAY more complicated than that.

There are several major industries in the US that are propped up by the government looking the other way. Migrant harvesters and in-the-trenches construction work are two major ones. If you look, the upper level management of these groups are two of the biggest contributors to political campaigns as a percentage of revenue. And they fund both parties almost equally. Reagan, who is considered a near god by many who are forcefully against immigration, championed and signed into law the largest immigrant amnesty bill in history. The politicos are not going to piss off major contributors to their campaigns.

A sudden crackdown and deportation of illegal immigrants would more than likely drive food prices up sharply, and cause large construction delays nationwide.

In the area around where I live, illegal immigrants are the preferred source of labor, and it is not just because of the lower wages. The work ethic and quality of work in most cases is superior to that of the American workers. I've heard numerous times that they can count on the guys from Mexico doing a good job and finish on time with little or no supervision, and that is not the usual result when using American workers.

There always will be illegal immigration into the US. Having 7,500 miles of borders with your two neighbors means you will not be able to stop people getting through, fence or not. The prudent course of action to take is to figure out the best way to manage the situation, taking into account the economic impact, legal impact, and personal impact.

"". Good stuff.

Re: Legal Immigration, you have nutjobs like Tancredo that intend to stop that as well. Fundementally, what these people don't get is that you're adding talent to a nation. Silicon Valley wouldn't exist without the legions of people who were "FOB's".

[14ers]

rrect to agree with, but Vincente Fox was right when he said Mexicans were needed in the United States because they take the jobs blacks won't even take. He should have added whites as well, but the point is the same.
I have never believed this arguement.

Increase the pay and benefits for the job and eventually you will have a package that an American worker will gladly take. It will mean less profit for the business owner and a rise in cost to the consumer, but it will also mean lower unemployment and more jobs for Americans.

[flere-imsaho]

I have never believed this arguement.

You must not have read lungs' post on the subject.

Increase the pay and benefits for the job and eventually you will have a package that an American worker will gladly take. It will mean less profit for the business owner and a rise in cost to the consumer, but it will also mean lower unemployment and more jobs for Americans.

And how do you do this, exactly? Regulation?

[PSUColonel]

You must not have read lungs' post on the subject.



And how do you do this, exactly? Regulation?

welfare reform.

[beargrowlz]

I have never believed this arguement.

Increase the pay and benefits for the job and eventually you will have a package that an American worker will gladly take. It will mean less profit for the business owner and a rise in cost to the consumer, but it will also mean lower unemployment and more jobs for Americans.

Sure you believe this argument, or you wouldn't think there's a need to increase the pay and benefits for such jobs. ;)

It will, as you state, increase costs to the American consumer and mean lower profits for business, both of which are anethema to most Americans IMHO.

[wade moore]

I have never believed this arguement.

Increase the pay and benefits for the job and eventually you will have a package that an American worker will gladly take. It will mean less profit for the business owner and a rise in cost to the consumer, but it will also mean lower unemployment and more jobs for Americans.

Have you looked at the unemployment rate lately?

[flere-imsaho]

welfare reform.

That's so enlightening. Is it too much to ask you to elaborate?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Have you looked at the unemployment rate lately?

I was wondering about that, but figured it wouldn't do any good to mention it.
No sense letting reality get in the way of a good delusion.

[flere-imsaho]

No sense letting reality get in the way of a good delusion.

Who are you and what have you done with JonInMiddleGA?

:p

[JonInMiddleGA]

Who are you and what have you done with JonInMiddleGA?

There are only so many windmills that a man can tilt at in a single day before crashing to the ground ;)

[flere-imsaho]

crashing to the ground

I'd pay good money to see that, you know. :p

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd pay good money to see that, you know. :p

Just to help with the visualization, make sure that I'm tilting further & further to the right :D

[beargrowlz]

Just to help with the visualization, make sure that I'm tilting further & further to the right :D

Heh, the only righty in Athens. :)

[wade moore]

I was wondering about that, but figured it wouldn't do any good to mention it.
No sense letting reality get in the way of a good delusion.

Yeah, I know, I know...

There are certain blatant things that I just can't let go sometimes.

[BishopMVP]

I have never believed this argument.

Increase the pay and benefits for the job and eventually you will have a package that an American worker will gladly take. It will mean less profit for the business owner and a rise in cost to the consumer, but it will also mean lower unemployment and more jobs for Americans.While simultaneously reducing the disposable income of every American who has a job and thus lowering their standard of living. Screwing over close to 300 million out of their diffuse benefits to put maybe 10 million more people in work wouldn't seem to be the wisest allocation of our labor resources.And my trip to the states of Veracruz and Guererro in southern Mexico was probably the most enlightening experience I've had in my life. I specifically went to see where the people I employ come from. I certainly got all the answers I was looking for and then some on why they come here.(I also want to thank you for your take.) The scary thing is that as bad as southern Mexico is, they still have a massive immigration problem from Central America (which they're building a fence to stop while decrying American attempts. Hypocrisy isn't the forte of American politicians alone.) Seeing slums in other countries is probably why I'm fairly unsympathetic to many welfare/outsourcing arguments.... unless people want to go the full xenophobic route and argue that being an American gives you a divine right to a better life and job than non-Americans it's hard to call most "poor people" in this country poor in anything but a relative sense.And that is based on the fact that a certain segment of the population is unemployable.Shhhhhh. Although I'm curious whether you base this on a lack of skills, a lack of comparable work ethic, or something else?

[flere-imsaho]

How does it open up a can of worms, exactly? I can think of at least three different ways you can contend that it does, each of which I can easily refute, but instead of me doing your work for you, why don't you convince me that you're not just parroting a right-wing talking point and that you've actually thought about this.

So, how, specifically, does a guest worker program compromise national security? Give me examples, even if they're hypothetical.

You didn't read what I wrote. The terrorists I mentioned were either American citizens or entered the country legally.

As I've asked you many times before, what is your argument, specifically? Convince me you've actually thought about this, and you aren't just parroting talk show talking points.


That's so enlightening. Is it too much to ask you to elaborate?

Still waiting for your responses/explanations PSU. Convince me you've actually thought about this, and you aren't just parroting talk show talking points.

[PSUColonel]

Still waiting for your responses/explanations PSU. Convince me you've actually thought about this, and you aren't just parroting talk show talking points.

Well, for one thing many immigrants who come to this nation illegally actually wind up on welfare (how they can do this without a social security number I don't know, I think many times they are able to do this through their children who are citizens, but this is a debate for another day) and as a result, many citizen tax payers are taking up the burden. Now this doesn't mean all illegals are on welfare either. What I think we should do is simply scale back welfare all together, for everyone...even U.S. citizens. What we save in taxes would enable employers to provide better wages to actual U.S. citizens who might not ordinarily be working because they were on welfare. The one kink I see in all of this is the fact that unemployment is currently at only 5%, which in essence is essentially total employment. People forget that truthfully 5% of the population is simply unemployable for various reasons.

[lungs]

The one kink I see in all of this is the fact that unemployment is currently at only 5%, which in essence is essentially total employment. People forget that truthfully 5% of the population is simply unemployable for various reason.

And that's a pretty big kink.

[JPhillips]

You do realize that welfare is a very small percentage of the budget and a minuscule portion of the GDP? You could completely eliminate welfare(not including medicaid) and it wouldn't balance the budget and wouldn't lower your taxes a penny.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, for one thing many immigrants who come to this nation illegally actually wind up on welfare (how they can do this without a social security number I don't know, I think many times they are able to do this through their children who are citizens, but this is a debate for another day)

Not after the 1996 Welfare reform bill, they don't. In some cases they can use stolen or counterfeit SSNs, but this is highly risky. The statistics most people like to point to are the benefits they can receive that are intended solely for the support of their U.S.-born children, but the GAO shows that this, at best, makes up only 2-3% of overall welfare expenditures.

and as a result, many citizen tax payers are taking up the burden in the form of taxes.

And yet, it's estimated that roughly 2/3rds of illegal aliens pay taxes, apparently in some sort of hope that this will eventually help their case to gain citizenship.

What I think we should do is simply scale back welfare all together, for everyone...even U.S. citizens. What we save in taxes would enable employers to provide better wages to actual U.S. citizens who might not ordinarily be working because they were on welfare. The one kink I see in all of this is the fact that unemployment is currently at only 5%, which in essence is essentially total employment. People forget that truthfully 5% of the population is simply unemployable for various reason.

So here's your plan:

1. Cut welfare.
2. Use those savings to cut taxes.
3. Employers, out of their own volition, pay better wages.

Personally, I think there's a disconnect between steps #2 and #3.

[PSUColonel]

My suggestion is that we stop paying welfare to HEALTHY people who do not work, but instead, we should use welfare as a supplement to those who work for low wages. This is scaling back welfare. There should be two different types of wages, 1) a minimum wage, and 2) a welfare wage. This way minimum wage can remain where it is in each state, and not need to be raised. The Welfare Wage would be based upon each state’s average living wage. If a legal worker earns less than his or her state’s living wage, the government will supplement those wages to bring those workers up to that wage amount. Therefore if a state’s minimum wage is $6.15 per hour, and their standard of living constitutes a wage of $10.00 per our; the welfare wage would be $3.85 per hour.

[beargrowlz]

Yeah, it's a myth that illegals end up on welfare. Illegals can't obtain welfare (except for one specific instance) and even legal aliens have an inordinantly difficult time qualifying compared to American citizens.

Illegals cannot obtain TANF or Food Stamps legally. They could use false social security numbers, but evenetually that will catch up with them and the welfare agency will shut them off just as they would any American committing welfare fraud.

The one instance where undocumented aliens can qualify for welfare is for emergency medicaid. That's when a doctor signs a statement that the medical treatment the alien is receiving is life saving - though doctors sign it for birth and delivery as well, which technically probably doesn't qualify but the government lets it go.

The children of undocumented aliens born in the United States howeverm do qualify for welfare. They are after all, U.S. citizens by birthright.

PSUColonel's program is interesting in that it would encourage work. But there are two major problems with it.

1) There are far more Americans working at below the living wage than are not working and receiving welfare. Implementing such a plan would cost significantly more in government expenditure than retaining the current system., increasing the size of government and no doubt necessittating new taxes.

2) Are you really prepared to watch hundreds of thousands of children die and be shelterless because their parents are lazy? Or do you pay benefits for the children and not the parents?

[beargrowlz]

dola.

In the interest of accuracy I should also add that undocumented aliens also do qualify for local public education.

[JPhillips]

I commend PSU on posting a proposal, but there is another hole in it. If you are going to subsidize wages up to a living wage amount employers will have no reason to offer anything but minimum as long as the salary stays at living wage level. If living wage is 10/hr why would I ever offer 7 or 8 dollars an hour when the government is going to cover anything from minimum to 10?

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it would do much more than give businesses a huge windfall.

[finkenst]

2) Are you really prepared to watch hundreds of thousands of children die and be shelterless because their parents are lazy? Or do you pay benefits for the children and not the parents?

If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

Seriously, why are you having so many children if you can't afford to feed, clothe, house 'em? I just don't understand this...

full disclosure: single, no kids.

[beargrowlz]

Seriously, why are you having so many children if you can't afford to feed, clothe, house 'em? I just don't understand this...

full disclosure: single, no kids.

Because people don't think rationally.

I'm not saying having children if you can't care for them is smart. The best advice as a CPS Case Manager I can give clients is not to have kids.

But even though sayings like "If you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em" are cute (and good advice), it still doesn't alleviate the problem or answer the question.

If the parents can't or won't care for their children, someone has to. If no one will, the state has to or they die.

[WVUFAN]

It is irresponsible to think that the majority of those perpatrating terrorist attacks against American targets/interests are American born, or even to a little lesser extent American citizens. I don't presume you are so dumb as not to realize this either. You simply just like causing friction here for some reason...especially when it comes to me personally.

I agree with many of your points, as I believe we should close immigration to this country completely (at least in the short term), but it's not because of national security. I believe that the next major attack with be from a person legally in this country. The terrorists know that the best way to purpetrate an attack is to recruit from within. There's a bunch of disenfranchised people out there that are easy pickings for this sort of thing.

No, my major concern is the affect immigration, especially illegal, has on social programs in this country. When so many legal residents are not getting the help they need, when so many people are on the streets, we should not be wasting resources on people not in this country legally. That's my major issue. I wish the laws were to be changed that illegal immigrants not be eligible for any socially funded programs.

[finkenst]

Because people don't think rationally.

I'm not saying having children if you can't care for them is smart. The best advice as a CPS Case Manager I can give clients is not to have kids.

But even though sayings like "If you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em" are cute (and good advice), it still doesn't alleviate the problem or answer the question.

If the parents can't or won't care for their children, someone has to. If no one will, the state has to or they die.

so, how come so many people are adopting foreign kids (china, vietnam come to mind) rather than american kids? Is our legal system that screwed up?

[flere-imsaho]

When so many legal residents are not getting the help they need, when so many people are on the streets, we should not be wasting resources on people not in this country legally. That's my major issue. I wish the laws were to be changed that illegal immigrants not be eligible for any socially funded programs.

But we're not, really. The amount of resources that end up being spent on illegal aliens is a very, very small of overall expenditures of this kind, which are, in turn, a very, very small part of the overall government budget. Debt service or the war in Iraq, just to pick two examples, dwarf the expenditures we're talking about.

[beargrowlz]

so, how come so many people are adopting foreign kids (china, vietnam come to mind) rather than american kids? Is our legal system that screwed up?

I can't answer about foreign nations adoption process, but there are serious issues with our's.

First and foremost, many, perhaps most of the children in our foster care system have serious mental health issues because of the way they were raised - or not raised. You need to remember that kids who enter foster care are there because they were either physically or sexually abused or neglected to the point that an overworked, understaffed, underpaid state agency that has trouble retaining workers for more than a year had to step in and remove them from the home.

So the kids have a lot of baggage people don't want.

Second, even after a child enters foster care, it's extraordinarily difficult to terminate parental rights, and no one can adopt that child until his or her parent's have their rights terminated in court. All a parent has to do in order to avoid TPR is to agree and follow a case plan.

Then they are free to abuse or neglect all over again.

Then once the TPR is done, assuming adoptive parents come forward to adopt a foster kid, they have to go through the legal system - which is admittedly beyond how I am involved with the kids, so I don't know a heck of a lot about that end.

[WVUFAN]

But we're not, really. The amount of resources that end up being spent on illegal aliens is a very, very small of overall expenditures of this kind, which are, in turn, a very, very small part of the overall government budget. Debt service or the war in Iraq, just to pick two examples, dwarf the expenditures we're talking about.

On the grand scale of things, you're absolutely right. In the last big thread about this someone posted the amount of money social programs utilize for the benefit of illegal aliens, and it was somewhere in the amount of 10 billion (or roundabout there). That's pocket change if you're looking at it from an overall perspective, but I'm looking at it as 10 billiion that could be spent helping those here legally.

To me, it all comes down to priority, I guess, and to me the priorities in this country when it comes to social programs have always been screwy.

[flere-imsaho]

On the grand scale of things, you're absolutely right. In the last big thread about this someone posted the amount of money social programs utilize for the benefit of illegal aliens, and it was somewhere in the amount of 10 billion (or roundabout there). That's pocket change if you're looking at it from an overall perspective, but I'm looking at it as 10 billiion that could be spent helping those here legally.

Yes, but the 1996 Welfare Reform Act really cut all that down. My point is that this particular well is dry. I understand your point about priorities, but to be honest, there are much bigger blocks of money to target. Heck, there was $1 billion in Iraq redevelopment money which essentially went missing. There's billions being sent overseas to Afghanistan & Iraq to provide services we don't provide to all of our own citizens. Not to mention that a lot of DoD R&D projects easily blow through as much money as this gap.

[st.cronin]

What, are you trying to confuse the President even more? :D

That was pretty funny, I have to admit.

[JPhillips]

so, how come so many people are adopting foreign kids (china, vietnam come to mind) rather than american kids? Is our legal system that screwed up?

As some one who's adopted from China let me give you some of my reasons for choosing international adoption over domestic. Be aware that I'm talking about newborns and not foster care children.

The birthmother generally chooses the adoptive parents. This leads to a high degree of uncertainty in the process. You may get a child very quickly or you may wait years. This alone is enough to scare a lot of folks off. More than that, though, is the whole sense of competition in the process. You are trying to sell yourselves as parents to in most cases a young, not very educated girl with little to no parenting experience. It leads to a lot of choices being made on income and looks.

As stated above the parental rights issue is a major concern. Most likely it won't be an issue, but birthmothers do change their mind occasionally ad when they do you really have very little recourse. Imagine having a child for a year and then that child being taken away.

While we are now an interracial family, adopting a black child would be far more difficult for us and the child. Race and racism in the US is still a conversation dominated by white/black issues. Adopting a black child would expose the child and us to situations that we aren't prepared to deal with. Let me be clear that these are problems that will come both from whites and blacks. There is a vocal part of the black community that doesn't believe white parents should have black children.

Foreign adoption is a much more predictable and accepted practice in the US than domestic adoption. In most cases it costs more, but the ability to know the steps of the process is very beneficial to waiting parents.

[Mo.Raider]

JPhilipps-

Hey man, we just finalized our second from Korea! He is watching his big sis ride her hippitty hop and cackling with envy.


To add to what JPhillipps and Bear have already stated, when we adopted our little ones, everything legally is as if they were born to us. In the U.S. the uncertainty is a killer. Way too much legal risk. We went through the whole domestic process, all the while being told that they really didn't want nor need us, as they really wanted to just put the kids back with their biological parents. We waited for probably two years for a referral of anything close to a healthy child and it just wasn't going to happen. Most of the time when we came close to adopting older children we were told that we would have to have an open adoption. This began to seem way too much like babysitting until the parents were able to "handle" having a child and could come back and try to regain custody. We really were like most normal people and just wanted to have a family.

[chesapeake]

It is irresponsible to think that the majority of those perpatrating terrorist attacks against American targets/interests are American born, or even to a little lesser extent American citizens.

As depressing as it may be, the FBI and DHS are finding just that. A subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee has been conducting a number of hearings and briefings on this domestic radicalization. Flere's examples are well made, and I would throw in a couple more -- Jose Padilla, the SoCal cell busted in 2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/sept05/ca_indict090105.htm) the London bombers (UK citizens, but the same deal).

Also worth noting are the US citizens that have joined up with al Qaeda. This New Yorker article about one of bin Laden's top advisers, Azzam the American, is disturbing on a number of levels: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/01/22/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian

[PSUColonel]

As depressing as it may be, the FBI and DHS are finding just that. A subcommittee of the House Homeland Security Committee has been conducting a number of hearings and briefings on this domestic radicalization. Flere's examples are well made, and I would throw in a couple more -- Jose Padilla, the SoCal cell busted in 2005 (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/sept05/ca_indict090105.htm) the London bombers (UK citizens, but the same deal).

Also worth noting are the US citizens that have joined up with al Qaeda. This New Yorker article about one of bin Laden's top advisers, Azzam the American, is disturbing on a number of levels: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/01/22/070122fa_fact_khatchadourian

I agree that this is a real threat, and that it's one that is increasing, but you'll also notice I said "majority", not "all".

[chesapeake]

I agree that this is a real threat, and that it's one that is increasing, but you'll also notice I said "majority", not "all".

I know you did. A majority of the arrests and prosecutions inside the US for terrorism-related charges lately has been homegrown folks. At least, that is the way it was presented by the FBI to House Members. No one asked them for exact numbers, so I don't have them at my fingertips.

I'll give you a safe out. I think Flere (and subsequently, myself) was speaking of US interests and targets purely within our borders, in which case evidence is growing that we are looking at domestic perpetrators, as unthinkable as that may be. What you wrote may have meant US interests globally, in which case a vast majority of the plotters are not American.

To bring this tangent back to the main discussion, the Tom Tancredos of the world (and someone earlier in this thread, I believe) have hypothesized that Middle Eastern terrorists might be going to Mexico, posing as Mexicans, and then hiring coyotes or devising other schemes to get themselves across the border. There is no documentary evidence of that happening. Meaning that, of the thousands caught on the Southern border sneaking in over the past few years, none have turned out to be terrorists of Middle Eastern origin.

I can think of a couple of cases where we got folks on the Northern border, including the so-called Millennium Bomber Ahmed Ressam, caught in Port Angeles, WA in 2000. But he entered legally.

None of this should be construed as negating the need for appropriate fences, barriers, agents and technology on the land borders to increase our operational control. But the anti-terrorism gains from this are very modest in comparison to the costs.

[PSUColonel]

I actually agree. Forgive me for my sometimes short and blunt comments, but I don't often enough have time to articulate my full views here on a message board. Many Muslims have taken up occupancy in French quarters, and that is likely the reason you see more muslim criminals, or potential criminals coming from the north. However I feel it is a matter of time before they discover the reasons for coming from the south. Just my opinion.

[Edward64]

Well, Immigration bill went down in flames.

I am an immigrant myself and other than for the bad taste of 'amnesty', thought we needed some sort of reform.

Really liked the point based, skilled based criteria.

[Buccaneer]

Can you have imagined the immense beaucracy it would have taken to manage the details in that bill? And do you think they would have been able to manage it right? Would we have gotten the benefits from such legislature in relation to the costs?

[NoMyths]

Can you have imagined the immense beaucracy it would have taken to manage the details in that bill? And do you think they would have been able to manage it right? Would we have gotten the benefits from such legislature in relation to the costs?

That's part of the point -- job creation, anyway.