Yes, they can act quickly, and quite specifically when they think there's political advantage to be gained.

See Schiavo, although they were mistaken about the potential political gain.

It's probably somebody's pet project. They're still pissed off about the Catholic Sanctuary movement of the 1980s giving refuge to all of those slackers from El Salvador who didn't realize that it was an honor to be murdered by American-trained right-wing death squads.

If I remember right, the current archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, was one of the big figures in Sanctuary.

I wonder if this bill is actually meant to pass.

I'm as strongly in favor of enforcing our immigration laws as anyone, but this bill has some wacko provisions. Note that it makes it a crime to offer assistance to illegal immigrants, but not to those who employ them. This is the same old joke - act tough but don't actually endanger the cheap labor supply (the main reason illegal immigration is tolerated).

Even more wacko, being an illegal immigrant would be a federal felony. Just what we need, 12 million instant felons. There was an amendment to reduce it to a misdemeanor, which is sensible, but I'm not sure if it's been accepted.

Note that it makes it a crime to offer assistance to illegal immigrants, but not to those who employ them.

Then the bill really is a fucking joke. "Hey, you can pay illegal immigrants, just don't feed them!"

What a quandary for conservatives: Faith-Based Action versus Hatred of Immigrants.

It's almost as stark as the Manassas, VA paradox: Hatred of Zoning Laws versus Hatred of Immigrants. (Manassas now prohibits households from having more than one non-family member in residence, aimed at fighting overcrowding.)

Beneath the veneer of solidarity amongst conservative Evangelicals and Catholics, the animosity still lingers -- Catholics feel obligated to do good works especially to fellow Catholics in need whereas the Evangelicals see the Hispanics as "outsiders" not in their tribe or even of their faith.

The reality is that senators from both parties acknowledge that the House bill isn't going anywhere. But expectations aside, House Republicans are walking a perilous political tightrope here. On the one hand, the conservative base wants harsh restrictions that punish illegal immigrants for being in the country. On the other, many faith-based groups that the GOP would like to impress, including the politically powerful U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, not only oppose the bill, they're pushing the White House to oppose the measure publicly.

The largely fundamentalist Christian Right, and their proxy in the White House, does not want "impress" the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, they want to displace, neutralize, and credit them as a significant voice. They are no less likely to use wedge issues like this against that Conference than against the Democratic Party. While there are areas of agreement in doctrine that the Christian Right is quick to exploit, having alternative voices embracing what are often sharply conflicting opinions on economic, foreign policy, and other issues and doing so based on supposed Christian religious authority is something the Christian Right has no taste for.

While they've certainly sought to ally with and reinforce the most right-wing existing factions in the Catholic Church, they'd just as soon -- for political reasons as well a sectarian and theological ones -- neutralize the Catholic Church and Catholic heirarchy as an influential institution entirely.

Well said, Mnemosyne. A pet peeve of mine is that James Woods didn't get the oscar for Salvador. It was a blatantly political decision.

Those lawmakers can move pretty quickly when they want to.

Admittedly off-topic, but isn't this one of our main talking points regarding the secret domestic wiretaps? The Bush adminstration could have requested a modification to the law and his party's control of congress more or less equates to a guarantee that the changes would have been implemented.
/rant

okay, more on-topic.

Catholics feel obligated to do good works especially to fellow Catholics in need whereas the Evangelicals see the Hispanics as "outsiders" not in their tribe or even of their faith.

I think its more that Catholics feel the need to do "good works" whereas Evangelicals believe its faith not works. Hence, the Evangelicals casual dismissal of the plight for those not sharing the faith.

Grumpy, as a lifelong Manassan I think I can shed some light on "the Manassas paradox."

Conservatives here aren't really averse to zoning in their own neighborhoods if it keeps the block pretty, but they espouse the generalized anti-tax, anti-"gubmint in my business" conservatism that would logically lead to opposition to zoning if they thought it through. Mostly, they're just seizing a political philosophy that validates their impulses of greed and selfishness.

The legislation, which cleared the House this month, could also subject the spouses and colleagues of illegal workers to prosecution.

nothing like guilt by association for these "compassionate conservatives", eh??

Neither party really wants to deal with illegal immigrants, each for their own reasons.

The obvious solution is to shut the border down and start controlling input. At that point, we can start dealing with those who are already here.

America was made by immigrants. All of us are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Even Native Americans immigrated here. Open the borders to not only capital, goods,and services, but also to labor.

Where I live, people migrate to from all over the US without requiring state approval. The prohibition of Native American peoples immigrating here from south of our arbitrary borders is wrong. Their American pedigree is greater than any European's, yet it is the European immigrants who now want to prevent migration from the first American immigrants, who we call Natives.

Open the borders and let anyone come who wants to come. If you do not like it, go back to where you or your ancestors came from.

Edo,

Excellent point - In the homeless community nationwide, there are missions run by Catholic Community Services, the Lutherans and evangelical groups. Neither the Catholics nor the Lutherans believe in proselytizing while offering aid, shelter, food to the homeless. However, the missions run by the evangelicals, such as the Union Gospel will not feed nor give shelter in the evening without forcing the homeless to attend an "ear banging", that is an hour of mandatory church service.

A homeless person once told me of a minister yelling at the assembled group of homeless. The minister said that she had been coming to the shelter for some time and kept seeing many of the same faces. She said that they were there because they refused to "come forward and accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior". The fellow said that the guy sitting next to him said, "Yeah, all we have to do is go forward and tomorrow, we will all be wearing Brooks Brothers, with wing tips and carrying brief cases."

Make the case for me that the UCCB is politically powerful.

And yes, Catholics and evangelicals think differently about politics. For example, Catholics tend to oppose abortion out of a sincere belief that it is the taking of a human life, while evangelicals tend to oppose abortion out of a belief that sexual morality needs to be enforced and that pregnancy is a punishment for having illicit sex.

I think the immigration issue will be a very difficult one for Republicans next year. (It's difficult for Dems, too, though for different reasons; the advantage the Dems have, as the party out of power, is that they don't have to say much about it.) There's a split between the Rove group, which wants to appeal to the Hispanic vote, and the nativist (especially Southern) working class that provides so many GOP votes, that wants to greatly restrict immigration of all kinds. Looming over all of these are the corporations, who love illegal immigration because illegals are easy to exploit, and high levels of immigration depress wages. Since those are the folks who pay the bills, nothing meaningful against illegal immigration can actually be done by the GOP, so we'll get loud, meaningless gestures like these.

Steven Benen,

You are inventing a dispute, dreaming and your credibility is going to be shot.

The debate is the usual, cheap immigrant labor vs the cost of government support.

tbrosz: Neither party really wants to deal with illegal immigrants, each for their own reasons.

Too true.

The obvious solution is to shut the border down and start controlling input.

Border security by itself is not enough. It's already been increased to little or no effect. If they don't walk across the border, then illegal immigrants can fly and overstay their visas.

The missing element is employment enforcement. Forget new laws - start handing out the $30k fines already allowed by law, and watch what happens. Of course every time that's tried cheap labor employers scream bloody murder (eg Nebraska meat packers).

At that point, we can start dealing with those who are already here.
Posted by:

Hostile,

Open the borders to not only capital, goods,and services, but also to labor.

You give no clue as to whether you are an extreme libertarian or an extreme Liberal, however what you propose would work to achieve the political aims of each position, and in the long run completely eviscerate any support such a political position enjoyed.

If you're a libertarian, then the flood of free moving immigrants arriving to the US would put such a severe strain on social services that the libertarian goal of reducing gov't involvement in people's lives will be achieved, and to a large extent we'd all be worse off from arriving at the libertarian end-state.

If you're a liberal, then your allegiance to the world's disadvantaged over your fellow countrymen will indeed improve the fortunes of the 5 Billion people with mean incomes below those found in the US but the backlash against liberalism's allegiance to "others" instead of fellow citizen's will drive even more people into the immigration restrictionist's camp.

I guess, in the end it really doesn't matter what political direction you're coming from, you're ideology is ill-thought out and illogical.

It's unfortunate to see "liberals" opposing what's in the best interest of the U.S. and something that's supported by the great majority of Americans: stopping or reducing illegal immigration.

the conservative base wants harsh restrictions that punish illegal immigrants for being in the country

If you want to be honest, there's a bit more to it, isn't there? Most Americans want the illegal aliens to be deported or to deport themselves. They also want the companies that profit off them to be fined. And, those who are familiar with this topic want the other side to stop lying just once.

As for the bill itself, some in the know - a group that apparently doesn't include those at WM - think it might be a trojan horse: the Senate will add in a "guest" worker scheme.

I note also that the Mexican government is encouraging our Fifth Columnists to oppose HR 4437.

And, they're paying a "longtime Bush family adviser" to spread Mexican propaganda in the U.S.

How does it feel to be useful idiot supporters of lowering wages for low-wage American workers, union busting, corrupt profiteers off illegal activity, foreign interference in our internal politics, and worker abuse?

TLB writes:

How does it feel to be useful idiot supporters of lowering wages for low-wage American workers, union busting, corrupt profiteers off illegal activity, foreign interference in our internal politics, and worker abuse?

What, have liberals been caught contributing to the Abramoff and Delay legal defense funds? Did I miss the memo on this?

So, I can now assume you support raising wages and ending abuse of American workers and are a staunch backer of the expansion of unions? Or are you just blowing smoke?

tbrosz,

The obvious solution is to shut the border down and start controlling input. At that point, we can start dealing with those who are already here.

How's that working out in the War on Drugs (tm)?

The obvious solution is to shut down demand for the illegal labor. That's right, start enforcing existing law and fine the employers. As soon as the jobs dry up, illegal immigration will drop to manageable levels. Then we can "start dealing with those that are already here".

Rebecca Allen, RN,PhD: nothing meaningful against illegal immigration can actually be done by the GOP, so we'll get loud, meaningless gestures like these

I haven't noticed the Democrats falling over themselves to do anything about this either.

It's a shame, because I think that it would be a good issue for them.

theThirdPaul,

excellent anecodote. I may not care for 100% of the policies of the Catholic Church (or the Lutheran for that matter), but their emphasis on good works is clearly more in line with what we know of their spirtual origins. The evangelicals are just plain nasty. Their ends-justifies-the-means behaviour is reprehensible and decidely unChristian.

Alex,

It's a shame, because I think that it would be a good issue for them.

How so? Certainly not, IMHO, if the policy proscription is along the lines of what tbrosz suggests.

Steve writes:

"On the one hand, the conservative base wants harsh restrictions that punish illegal immigrants for being in the country."

Well, if by "punish" you mean "send home," then, uh, duh. I hardly think that qualifies as a "harsh" measure that "punishes" illegals.

The obvious solution is to shut the border down and start controlling input.

Mexicans have always been in favor of closed borders, but you guys still kept coming anyway.

Edo responded to tbrosz:

"The obvious solution is to shut the border down and start controlling input. At that point, we can start dealing with those who are already here."

"How's that working out in the War on Drugs (tm)?"

It's not, but it's much easier to control the flow of humans than drugs. The government could stop 95%+ of all illegal immigration within a year or two if it wanted to, and reasonable, cost-effective plans have been put forth on this my Mark Krikorian and others. It's simply a lack of will (unlike the war on drugs, which I agree is impossible to win and should be abandoned).

Democrats and progressives need to think about what they're FOR: citizenship? Families? The rule of law?

Or the vague generalities that just SEEM like principles?

Immigration is nowhere near as complex as the bullshit regulatory lawyers and letterheads with foundation grants would have folks believe: the Rule for American immigration is that immigrants are INVITED -- husbands and wives, parents and siblings.

If Congress actually delivered the millions of visas it has promised these people, that would reduce the illegally resident population by as much as 40% -- and for Congress to deliver what it promises ain't amnesty.

Worksite verification is the key to turn the deadlock: it's not PUNISHMENT. Hell, the House bill offers employers a safe harbor from fines if they use electronic verification based on the Social Security # - - as was recommended by the Jordan Commission nearly 12 years ago.

.

I am a radical libertarian and a radical liberal. If I was to become conservative, I would want to prevent Californians from moving to my city. Conservative Californians tried to prevent the diaspora of the Dust Bowl from over running their state, for some of the reasons pointed out by TangoMan. We are all better off because they were unsuccessful.

Immigrants made America great. Is that illogical?

All Americans are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Is that illogical?

Native Americans', even the ones South of our arbitrary borders, ancestors have lived in the Western Hemishpere longer than any European, giving them greater claim to migrating anywhere they want on their hemisphere. Is that illogical?

America still needs its population to grow in order to keep its economy growing. Is that illogical?

Capital, goods and services are now able to cross borders without much state resistance. As a student of economics, I think this makes us all richer, but it only favors consumers and capitalists. Labor is still a major component of the market, yet it is discriminated against because it may lead to lower wages for unskilled jobs.

Mr. Man, lower wages is a problem when increasing the availability of labor, especially for a libertarian socialist. The best compromise is to regulate wages not migration. It is pragmatism, not ideology.

A majority of my fellow countrypersons voted for the war pig. I prefer to identify myself with human beings not cannibalistic Americans. That's ideology.

Evangelical fundamentalist authoritarians want to shut down the good Catholics and good Protestants who have a desire to help people in need, whether they are immigrants or just unlucky, for ideological reasons based on anger and resentment. The politicians exploit evangelicals by attacking peoples and institutions that threaten their belief in an angry vengeful god. I hope there is enough opposition to prevent the type of laws Mr. Benen writes about. Our legislators would serve us better by legislating better working conditions and wages.

alex on December 30, 2005 at 5:43 PM:

It's a shame, because I think that it would be a good issue for them.

How? This issue is kinda of a catch-22; either run the risk of alienating Hispanic and business voters or blue-collar voters.

In my view, the only slightly winning position is to come out strongly for enforcement of existing employment law, as you mentioned earlier.

Anybody see the potential of these assholes being hoisted on their own petard?

Make your 2006 predictions about Iraq here.

Hostile,

Wow, I have to agree with most of what you said. I must take issue with you about the wages vs. migration and the for ideological reasons based on anger and resentment though.
Shouldn't both wage and immigration be part of the calculation. If you raise minimum wages too much you will have a diminishing return effect within the economy. The same for immigration reform. It is a balance of many things but in the case of wages and immigration both are needed.
The motivation of others isn't instructive from an objective point of view.

I think it is time for me to liquidate my assetts and be very obscure and discrete, because there is no fucking way on the face of this earth that I will ever deny medical care within my scope of ability and expertise, nor will I call ever call immigration. When I took the oath of my profession, I swore a pledge to humanity - all humanity - not just *humanity-who-can-prove-American-citizenship.*

I know that this particular bill is going nowhere, but do you really think that people like me are safe from these foam-flecked derranged and disturbed zealots to the right of Pat Buchanan? And if we have a modicum of security now, how long is it going to last. We (health care professionals) are all in the position to experience what abortion providers have dealt with for ages. It's getting ugly. Lab scientists in research routinely get threats. THe Fundies got really ugly with their phone calls and shouts when KU Med put Poly-Heme into stage four trials. Poly-Heme is synthetic blood to give to traumas and massive GI bleeds in place of human PRBC's (Packed Red Blood Cells) and FFP (fresh frozen plazma) to keep the patient alive. It's happening right now, and the science is solid, the research is yielding exciting and verifiable results.

We used to have a good relationship with the cops (ER staff and policemen) but that has changed in the last few years. The police have become hyper and almost skittish. I have felt for a long while that some of the guys I walk past every day and on whom I call when someone needs restrained, that they would turn on me in a New York Minute on the flimsiest of suspicions and years of working together be damned. They aren't friendly with us anymore, and we used to be on the same team. Now they regard us with suspicion, and we regard them with fear. They are the ones with the tazers and the guns.

They do ask questions about people we treat, and they are not entitled to that information, that is a blatant HIPPA violation. (HIPPA stands for Health Insurance Privacy and Portability Act) especially when the brown person they take an interest in came in under his own steam, and isn't a crime victim, but perhaps a diabetic. They get nasty with us that we aren't willing to break the law and risk our licenses because a person of middle eastern descent came to us for an emergent medical situation, and a cop found out and wants to start an investigation. HE became a diabetic in order to produce excess fructosamine, and they have figured some fiendish way of refining that sero-component into a devastating weapon. It's a plot! He isn't a patient!

I'm glad to see that many here still want to see employers who hire illegal immigrants fined or otherwise punished. I was beginning to wonder where the mainstream Left was going on this after reading a piece titled "The border — dividing line or common ground?" by David Bacon in the SF Chron a couple of weeks back.

Bacon, you see, doesn't like employer sanctions. More than that, he doesn't think unions like employer sanctions either. This juxtaposition between two of his "Reality checks" in the article (the URL's very long, but you can find it easily on www.sfgate.com) was wonderful:

-- Reality check No. 2: The work of migrants is indispensable to many industries, from agriculture to construction. So is the work of people born here. Everyone needs a job.

-- Reality check No. 3: Deporting or denying work to migrants does not create a single job for anyone else. In 1998, the AFL-CIO called for the repeal of employer sanctions, which prohibit the undocumented from holding a job. Employers use the law, unions argue, to push wages down and threaten those who demand workplace rights. When the prohibition was heavily enforced in Nebraska's meatpacking plants in 1998, union organizing was undermined and wages went down instead.

I see. So there is "indispensable" work done by people not legally allowed to do it. But if they are prevented from doing it on legal grounds, no one else will do it instead. No one else will get a job, at any price. That seems to imply that the work won't get done, which in turn implies that the work wasn't "indispensible," doesn't it?

In other words, "we must have all this cheap labor in the country, or someone is going to start asking us to do work under those conditions. So let the bosses hire whoever they want, for whatever wage, so long as I get to keep mine."

Anyone else here not particularly happy with this?

How's that working out in the War on Drugs (tm)?

At the street level, drugs are sold in parks and on street corners and involve quick transactions between shadowy lone parties who may not know one another.

The illegal labor market is quite different. Illegal aliens are employed by major corporations out in the open. The closest parallels between the drug and the illegal labor markets would be: sweatshops, massage places, and street corner day laborer. Even in those cases the employers are not otherwise unknown parties: they have business licenses, business locations, etc. etc.

Regarding the Dems and illegal immigration, if John Kerry had opposed illegal immigration he'd be president today.

He would have won Arizona (see Proposition 200) and if he'd spoken out against Bush's "guest" worker scheme he would have won Ohio. Trust me on this: words don't describe how odious that scheme is. No one else was discussing what they had planned, so you've probably never heard about this. Speaking out against proposals to bring in massive amounts of nurses and teachers to undercut American wages? And, the Dems refuse to oppose that?

And, by supporting border security, Kerry could have a) shown up Bush's failures, and b) shown that the Dems could be tough on security matters.

Of course, the Dems would face the loss of those race-oriented Hispanics who put their race and their countries of origin ahead of this country. Should the Dems reach out to such people? Should the Dems really reach out to people who are willing to help advance a foreign government's agenda inside the U.S.?

Especially since, as AZ's Prop. 200 shows, not all Hispanics agree with La Raza, MALDEF, LULAC, et al. Let those groups support the Greens or the Socialists instead. The "Hispanic vote" is a myth.

Now you see the foolishness of your foolishness!

Hostile,

Immigrants made America great. Is that illogical?

All of your points are illogical. It's not immigrants, per se, that made America great, it's individual immigrants. Furthermore, the days when a strong back and a willingness to work hard could lead to a solid foundation for an immigrant's family are long gone. The US doesn't need hordes of 6th grade educated hard workers who can't earn enough in wages to offset the services that the taxpayers provide to them. They're competing against our own citizens who are having trouble achieving the American dream. Further, they're holding back mechanization efforts in industries that rely on almost-slave labor.

All Americans are either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Is that illogical?

So what? All Eygptians, Turks, Germans, French, Italians, Brazilians, Bolivians, etc are also descendents of immigrants. Human history is filled with migrations. However, history is also filled with periods of communities striving to maintain themselves against outsiders. The fact that history is repleat with incidences of migration doesn't lend any support to your contention that nations, cultures, races, should open themselves up completely to unimpeded migration.

What you're proposing is that the decision to migrate is unidirectional, that is it is only the migrant who has the right to decide whether they will move to join a community and that the community has no say whatsoever in the decision. Regulated immigration, like we see in other countries, like Canada for instance, has the prospective immigrants applying and documenting their identity and credentials, so that the Canadian gov't can ascertain who they are, whether they have a criminal record, their command of English or French, their level of education, their age, marital status, etc. From this information, the elected representatives can decide on how many immigrants to allow into the country, can chose the immigrants with the skill levels that are most demanded by employers, or conversely chose those they think will provide positive attributes to the fabric of the nation.

Your proposal removes all methods of selection from the citizenry and the result is that hordes of uneducated people flood the country. The citizen's of the US have no say in whether criminals should be admitted or not, whether the immigrants should have a minimum of education, whether the immigrants should be of a certain age or have a rudimentary knowledge of what it means to be an American, etc. By your scheme all that matters is that someone wants to come to the US and the American citizen's have absolutely no say whatsoever in who shall be their neighbor.

giving them greater claim to migrating anywhere they want on their hemisphere. Is that illogical?

Yes, that's illogical, because you're choosing some arbitrary value, like length of ancestry on the continent. By your standards then, the French should be able to arbitrarily deport any people who have arrived into their country in the last 50 years because their length of residency is less than native French citizens.

Further, you completely avoid the issue of what these long residing families in the hemisphere have achieved in terms of developing their nations, communities and economies. I could as easily pick the arbitrary value of economic development and argue that it trumps all other values. The US citizens, though they are newer arrival on the continent have achieved much more in terms of wealth creation, education, equality, etc than the indigenous populations and therefore deserve to maintain some control of what they have achieved.

However, this hypothetical nitpicking doesn't amount to much, because the concept that you so deride, that of borders, is universally recognized, they have a long history, are far from arbitrary, and the whole rules of the international game are built on the premise of borders.

The best compromise is to regulate wages not migration.

You wrote that you are a student of economics, yet you write this. It seems to me that you're allowing your fantastic visions of a borderless utopian world override the hard and fast principles of how economies function. You can't legislate away supply and demand curves. Having 5 Billion low wage workers in the US competing for 1 million minimum wage jobs with the minimum wage set at $20/hr isn't going to create another 4 Billion + $20/hr jobs for them.

alex: It's a shame, because I think that it would be a good issue for them.

Edo: How so? Certainly not, IMHO, if the policy proscription is along the lines of what tbrosz suggests.

The problem with tbrosz's suggestion is not that it's draconian, but that it's ineffectual. Employment enforcement is an essential missing ingredient, and most people who think about this issue realize that. Without, it's all smoke, mirrors and grandstanding. Enforce employment laws and people will realize that illegal cheap labor is the problem, and that it has nothing to do with bigotry.

grape_crush: How? This issue is kinda of a catch-22; either run the risk of alienating Hispanic and business voters or blue-collar voters.

"Hispanic voters" is a very broad category that doesn't have any political coherence. IIRC many Hispanics are at least not opposed to better immigration enforcement, just as many immigrants want their children to be educated in Engish.

A key aspect to any employment enforcement program though should be ensuring that it doesn't lead to discrimination against Hispanics (or Asians, or whomever) because of fear that they may be illegal. More difficult to counterfeit ID and safe harbor provisions for employers that follow the ID requirements should do the trick.

Similiarly "business voters" is a very broad category. Most businesses don't employ illegal immigrants anyway. Of those that do, perhaps a level playing field will make it less tempting (or necessary) to break the law. It's tough to compete using legal labor if your competitors pay $3/hr.

grape_crush: In my view, the only slightly winning position is to come out strongly for enforcement of existing employment law, as you mentioned earlier.

Then that's the position they should take. I think it may be more than slightly winning, as many people I know that are further to the left than me also feel strongly about it. They know it's about cheap labor.

BTW, here in Suffolk County, NY the Democratic County Executive has done fine clamping down on illegal immigration - lots of support.

Global Citizen,

When I took the oath of my profession, I swore a pledge to humanity - all humanity - not just *humanity-who-can-prove-American-citizenship.*

Good for you! I admire that you're willing to work for free and actually pay out of your own pocket for the medical supplies, amortization on the equipment and the facilities that you're going to use to treat the medical issues of the illegal immigrants and not shaft the taxpayer, nor those who pay insurance premiums for their own care with the bills for treating the illegal immigrants.

And completely off-topic.

Have a Happy *and* Safe New Years Eve all!

Here's something else to consider.

Let's say there's an Iowa town that's famous for its meth production. Those meth producers spend a lot of money, and they spread it around. And, they're protected by the local leaders. And, that even reaches up to the national level, with the local leaders being protected by the national leaders of their party.

Then, let's say someone from the opposing party goes in and busts the scheme, uncovering and prosecuting political corruption. Why, that opposing party would be heralded throughout the land, would it not? They could make the other party look completely corrupt to its core.

Situations like that do exist in many towns, but they involve illegal labor. The local factories have become dependent on that labor, and they spread their influence around and are protected by the leaders.

If the Dems busted open this scheme, wouldn't they be heralded throughout the land? Wouldn't they do a good thing for the country, and make themselves look better to boot?

Perhaps the Democratic Party needs strategists who are a bit better at figuring things out.

(While not exactly similar in its details to the scenarios above, here's an example: our current Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, helped stop immigration raids of meat packing plants when he was governor of Nebraska. And, AR's Mike Huckabee had kind words to say about not just LULAC but Tyson Foods.)

I became aware of the plight of illegal immigrants as the result of my work with my local dioceses' work with workers hired to work in big chicken coops in south Missouri and northern Arkansas. They are among the most exploited people in America. When the church looked into the problem church leaders were shocked.

I came to the conclusion that Republicans don't want to solve the problem because the big agricultural corporations need the illegal immigrants to run their plants without regard to such things as workers compensation, and minimum wage. I have since learned that big construction companies like to exploit illegal immigrants for the same reasons.

Don't blame Wal-Mart alone. They are really some of the "better" employers of illegal immigrants. Think of poultry workers working long hours in stiffling conditions protected by no one (and I mean no one) except the ministry of sympathetic Christians.

This legislation is not intended to stop illegal immigration. It is intended instead to create a class of illegal slaves for big agricultural companies--slaves who can't even turn to their church for help.

Vote against anybody who votes for this program. If it passes, support the Christians who will go to jail instead of giving up their ministry to these truly unfortunate.

A lot of us think that the only Christians are of the right wing evangelical bent. Not the case. Most are truly decent and dedicated to helping their fellow men and women, expecially the exploited.

Global Citizen: there is no fucking way on the face of this earth that I will ever deny medical care within my scope of ability and expertise, nor will I call ever call immigration

Like I said, this bill is grandstanding. Initiatives that are actually meant to do something about illegal immigration have usually specifically excluded medical care, or at least emergency medical care, from any penalties or enforcement requirements. In some cases they specifically prohibit enforcement in such situations.

The Fundies got really ugly with their phone calls and shouts when KU Med put Poly-Heme into stage four trials.

I'll bite - what's their objection? Sorry if I can't remember chapter and verse what part of the Bible prohibits saving lives with synthetics.

We used to have a good relationship with the cops (ER staff and policemen) but that has changed in the last few years.

Amazing. Back when some people I knew were in ER or EMS the cops treated them like gold, if for no other reason than an acute awareness that they could be the next customer. Even the bad guys treated them well. A NYC EMS uniform was effectively bulletproof anywhere in the city.

Dance around this: We do pony over. When I worked for HCA (The Frist family business) they bought a 600-bed teaching hospital that is the hub of the zip code with the highest incidence of diabetes in the entire nation.

The first thing the Frists and HCA did was shut down the outpatient dialysis center because it wasn't profitable, the patients were poor and old, receiving medicare and medicaid. KC did not have the facilities in place to provide services and absorb these patients. So the employees got together, raised funds, donated a certain amount of money per payperiod, and volunteered our time to staff the center.

(When I work at the VA, there is little doubt of citizenship, since we are a closed system.)

And as for your intended slur about me abusing you and all hard-working taxpayers (myself included) when I waste your tax dollars by serving the poor who can't pay...I volunteer a couple of shifts a week at the Free Health Clinic

or at the Samuel U. Rodgers Community Health Center

Relax. I'm not stealing lab reagent and phlebotomy supplies to run cholesterol profiles on homeless people after hours.

By the way, in closing, everyone needs to be aware of a law called EMTALA which stands for Emergencey Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. No one with an emergent situation can be turned away. Appropriate care must, by law, be rendered. If I ever saw a physician or a nurse violate EMTALA, I would drop a dime in a heartbeat.

The obvious solution is to shut the border down and start controlling input. At that point, we can start dealing with those who are already here.

Sorta' like we do with drugs, eh, 'broz? There is absolutely nothing "obvious" about your solution except the xenophobia.

Like I said, this bill is grandstanding.

I acknowledged that. I know this is going nowhere, but the cultural seeds are planted now.

what's their objection? Sorry if I can't remember chapter and verse what part of the Bible prohibits saving lives with synthetics

Nor can I. They say we are playing God. That's always the bottom line. (I love being lectured on playing god by someone with a transplanted kidney sustaining their life.) They have no cogent arguments, they never do; they call us up, scream into the phone, and hang up.

Amazing. Back when some people I knew were in ER or EMS the cops treated them like gold, if for no other reason than an acute awareness that they could be the next customer.

How I long for those days. I remember them fondly. I should however, point out here that this is a phenomenon I have only experienced here, in Kansas City. Some of that might have to do with the fact that the Police Department in this town is under the control of the state legislature. It has remained under control of the legislature since the 1930's because the were so corrupt under Pendergast that it was deemed too corrupt for local control. In the ensuing 75 years, they have failed annually to clean up their act enough to return oversight to the mayor and city council. KC cops have quite a reputation for thumping heads first and asking questions later.

I am willing to retract that last part, about the cops. I bet that is a situation unique to this area. I came here les than six weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks. I hadn't had time to get too chummy yet. I thought the attacks changed them, but it is probably more likely that the KC cops are just inveterate pricks and they have skewed my perception.

I cede that point.

Whatever. I'd rather let the filthy illegal immigrants die than waste a cent of my precious tax dollars that can better be wasted on unnecessary and useless defense spending.

So there is "indispensable" work done by people not legally allowed to do it. But if they are prevented from doing it on legal grounds, no one else will do it instead. No one else will get a job, at any price. That seems to imply that the work won't get done, which in turn implies that the work wasn't "indispensible," doesn't it?

You hit the nail on the head here. The jobs that cheap immigrant labor does would likely be automated, were it not for the fact that employers know that they can rely on a steady supply of cheap labor. If they weren't available, the jobs wouldn't exist.

The Democrats won't turn illegal immigration into a key issue of their own because despite any worthiness of the cause, the big interest groups that support the crackdown on illegal immigration invariably have ties to racist and xenophobic organizations and attitudes. Teh Dems would be shooting themselves in the foot by providing a forum for these guys.

Global Citizen,

When you write of your oath to serve humanity you imply that those who object to paying for either routine or emergency medical care for people who shouldn't be in this country are of lower moral character than you. You see, it's quite easy to get on the moral high horse and stand on principle when fighting for the prinicple doesn't cost you anything. I'm reassured that you do personally volunteer your efforts but the fact that there is a huge financial crisis attached to providing care to illegal immigrants is testimony that your case is out of the ordinary.

I'm aware of EMTALA and the problem with the statute is that it compells a course of action and sticks the bill for that action onto innocent, uninvolved parties. The medical personnel are paid, the supplies are paid for, and the costs are shifted so that those who are insured pay more for the services they receive or ultimately some level of gov't has to step in and subsidize.

Further, efforts to stop the financial hemorrhaging associated with providing emergency care to illegals leads to the closure of facilities and restriction of services for citizens, for it is illegal to deny services on the basis of citizenship, so all must suffer from the closure or restiction, rather than only those who are here illegally.

I read the NYT article, and while they say "churches" object to the House bill, the only church officials quoted are Catholics.

Where are the fundies? Silent, I guess. They don't like immigrants, but are afraid to say so lest they be accused of hypocrisy; since the Old Testament is full of injunctions against treating foreigners differently from natives. E.g., that there shall be one law for native and stranger, you must give hospitality to strangers, etc. There are many times the number of such injunctions than there are prohibitions on sodomy, for example.

Do Sensenbrenner and his co-sponsors claim to be Christians? If so, they deserve to be called on this.

EMS around here is provided by either FDKC or MAST (for profit). Our EMS guys and girls aren't bulletproof. If there is one public service sector more corrupt than the cops in this town, it's the fire department.

Not quite 2 years ago, Mary Seymore, an EMT here in KC, was shot in the chest by a suspect, who blew up his house and killed himself and his female companion. I was on the trauma team at Research Medical Center that saved her. I do believe I spiked eight units of emergency uncrossmatched whole blood into her before she got to surgery.

But I know what you are getting at. I have worked as a paramedic, and I never felt safer. I wasn't scared to get out of the bus in the worst part of any town because that uniform was your free pass.

I'm sad to say that that just isn't the case here.

Nothing that the Marquis of Queensbury had in mind gets exercised here, it seems.

Oh god, I haven't the answers to all that ails us. I know first hand what the problems are, and I don't know what to do to set things right. So in the meantime, i'll just keep working, doing the best I can for as manhy as I can for as long as I can.

And I'm going to visit my congressman tomorrow...He needs a visit from me I do believe....

Constantine: The jobs that cheap immigrant labor does would likely be automated, were it not for the fact that employers know that they can rely on a steady supply of cheap labor.

Some would be automated, and some would just have to pay a decent wage. When I was a kid meat packing paid a decent wage. I grew up in a "working class" neighborhood, but somehow don't remember people having any trouble putting meat on the table.

The Democrats won't turn illegal immigration into a key issue of their own because despite any worthiness of the cause, the big interest groups that support the crackdown on illegal immigration invariably have ties to racist and xenophobic organizations and attitudes. Teh Dems would be shooting themselves in the foot by providing a forum for these guys.

Then change that perception of racism. Disown any hint of it, or any organization that even hints at it. Proposing shifting more of our legal immigration quotas to Mexico (and some other Latin American countries) would quash any suggestion of racism. It would also reduce the pressure for illegal immigration.

In the end, they're going to keep on coming- until the US is as much of a hell-hole as their country of origin- of course, said hell-hole will be caused by Der Monkey's 'leadership' as much as anything else.

The Republicans want the slave labor, the Dems the votes (and for the tightwads among them, slave labor too); we cannot expect any solutions from our 'representatives' that will maintain our quality of life.

The only way to fix it, IMHO, would be to improve thier lot at home- end US farm price supports, and propping up the Mexican dicatorship with the promise of 'El Norte'. But I for one won't be holding my breath.

I'm an immigration lawyer and bleeding heart Catholic. I've been active on this issue. This new bill, H.R. 4437, does many really radical things. Most shockingly, it makes it an "aggravated felony" for a person to be out of status for any reason.

Hundreds of thousands of people every year go out of immigration status temporarily due to government delays and errors! These are people who have always abided the law. Who were lawfully admitted. Who have American family and friends and ties.

This legislation is insanely punitive.

And contrary to popular wisdom, I think it has a good chance of success in the Senate in a few months, because the Senate is tied in knots by apparently larger issues.

This new law will make it a FELONY for any person to "assist" a person who is out of status to remain in the United States. The language is insanely broad. It will make felons out of charity workers, and all immigration lawyers, and all friends and neighbors (AND EMPLOYERS). It will make felons out of congressional staff people and the congressmen themselves who try to help people with immigration problems. Etc.

Of course the government does not have resources or inclination to bring criminal charges (and to seize and forfeit all assets) of the perhaps 20 or 30 percent of the American population that helps undocumented foreigners in one way or the other every year.

But there was be some asshole grandstanding prosecutor in Virginia or Alabama or Utah, etc. who will bring a few such cases. It is a terror tactic.

We're not living in a free democratic republic any more.

I'd really like to see Sensenbrenner go through some waterboarding to get at his real motives.

john manyjars: end US farm price supports

For all the noise about them, farm price supports have little to do with the US producing grain (corn, wheat, rice) cheaper than small Mexican farmers. While high (legal) labor costs in the US put us at a disadvantage in growing labor intensive crops (like many fruits and vegetables), US farmers are amazingly efficient at producing grain. It's a combination of the facts that these can be highly automated (combines, etc.) and that the US has so much good farmland for grain.

Of course the theory that "free" trade is mutually beneficial completely ignores distributional effects.

BTW, US farmers can also produce grain cheaper than Indian or Chinese small farmers. India though has an average 112% tariff on imported food. Makes sense, or otherwise the 70% of their population that depends on agriculture might well starve. Of course, the US outsources jobs in the name of "free" trade, while tolerating these tariffs.

Also, Japan has a 490% tariff on rice, and China uses tariffs and subsidies to ensure that 95% of their grain production is domestic. Meanwhile we run massive trade deficits with these countries. Tell me again how we have "free" trade.

Alex-

If US farmers are so efficient, well, then why the 10s of billions in price supports? You cannot possibly deny this gives them a huge advantage in selling in the 3rd world nations.

Both the US and Europe practice this, while preaching the mantra of 'free trade' otherwise.

It's quite shortsighted. I would much rather see US government support of manufacturing and tech industries, which is what the rest of the industrialized planet does, than billions for Monsanto, ADM and other conglomerates which employ a relatively small number of people- again, due to their vaunted efficiencies- but are quite well entrenched on K street.

Of course I'm not naive enough to think that a 'free market' really exists in today's world, it never has. But in the case of farm price subsidies we'd do well to practice what we preach to the 'developing' nations.

john manyjars: If US farmers are so efficient, well, then why the 10s of billions in price supports?

Who doesn't want money handed to them?

You cannot possibly deny this gives them a huge advantage in selling in the 3rd world nations.

It gives them an advantage selling anywhere. My point was that the effect is exaggerated. In googling for hard numbers though I did find though that the situation is not as clear cut as I first claimed. US corn production is cheap, but not wheat for example. However if the dollar dropped to the point where our trade was in balance, it would give US farm exports a tremendous advantage.

Both the US and Europe practice this

Not to mention Japan and China.

while preaching the mantra of 'free trade' otherwise

Many LDC's also have plenty of trade barriers.

It's quite shortsighted. I would much rather see US government support of manufacturing and tech industries, which is what the rest of the industrialized planet does

I'm not crazy about subsidies of any kind. What I would like to see though is action against countries that subsidize manufacturing. Sometimes they just hand out money, and other times they forget about silly things like taxes. That all helps explain Intel's newest fab under construction in Israel, or AMD's fab in Dresden. Then there's China ...

Most importantly the dollar has to come down. Be nice if we were serious about stopping currency manipulation by the PBOC (People's Bank of China) and other central banks.

But in the case of farm price subsidies we'd do well to practice what we preach to the 'developing' nations.

Because it would help the LDC's? Depends on which ones. Many, particularly the poorest, are net food importers. Developed world ag subsidies actually help them, because they make that weekly bowl of porridge a little cheaper. Lost amongst the WTO hoopla is that many honest estimates say the net effect of ag subsidies is positive for LDC's.

Alex and John Manyjars,

You both may find Amy Chua's World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability to be of some interest. Chua, a former IMF official and currently:

A professor at Yale Law School, Chua eloquently fuses expert analysis with personal recollections to assert that globalization has created a volatile concoction of free markets and democracy that has incited economic devastation, ethnic hatred and genocidal violence throughout the developing world. Chua illustrates the disastrous consequences arising when an accumulation of wealth by "market dominant minorities" combines with an increase of political power by a disenfranchised majority. Chua refutes the "powerful assumption that markets and democracy go hand in hand" by citing specific examples of the turbulent conditions within countries such as Indonesia, Russia, Sierra Leone, Bolivia and in the Middle East. In Indonesia, Chua contends, market liberalization policies favoring wealthy Chinese elites instigated a vicious wave of anti-Chinese violence from the suppressed indigenous majority. Chua describes how "terrified Chinese shop owners huddled behind locked doors while screaming Muslim mobs smashed windows, looted shops and gang-raped over 150 women, almost all of them ethnic Chinese." Chua blames the West for promoting a version of capitalism and democracy that Westerners have never adopted themselves. Western capitalism wisely implemented redistributive mechanisms to offset potential ethnic hostilities, a practice that has not accompanied the political and economic transitions in the developing world. As a result, Chua explains, we will continue to witness violence and bloodshed within the developing nations struggling to adopt the free markets and democratic policies exported by the West.

Ron Byers says: I became aware of the plight of illegal immigrants as the result of my work with my local dioceses' work with workers hired to work in big chicken coops in south Missouri and northern Arkansas. They are among the most exploited people in America.

Then, Ron goes on to say how he decided to fight against illegal immigration. Ron decided that the only reason those people were abused was because they were illegal aliens. And, in a sudden brilliant bright insight of wisdom, Ron realized that any time there are illegal aliens, they stand a good chance of being abused. And, Ron realized that the only way to prevent illegal immigration is to enforce our current laws. Amnesties and "guest" worker schemes only make it far worse and encourage even more illegal immigration.

Sure, Ron could have sounded like Sally Struthers. But, instead, he put his thinking cap on and realized that those who oppose the enforcement of our immigration laws are indirectly responsible for illegal aliens being abused.

I congratulate Ron on figuring that out.

The Latino Bigot,

Ron Byers is against this law as written. He is a Christian with a capital C who is attempting to help without proselytizing unlike the fundies.

You obviously believe that you are in the Alamo along with the other slave owners fighting for freedom.

Just discovered this video, The Battle for America on the net. The introduction is (perhaps intentionally but) needlessly inflammatory, but nice job overall.

Note that it makes it a crime to offer assistance to illegal immigrants, but not to those who employ them.

It doesn't need to make it a crime. It's already a crime and has been since 1986. The problem of late is that the federal government has simply not done its job, and Bush II has been the worst, with interior enforcement dropping to nil. HR 4437 does include a provision for checking all new hires' immigration status. It's sort of like the verification for gun buys. It's only a provisional program, and it's far from perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

As for penalizing Churchs and charities, the fact is many have abetted illegal immigration. They provide shelter and aid to those who've broken the law and make no effort to notify authorities. If I came across a fugitive criminal in distress, I'd render what aid I could, but I'd also call the cops. What these churches are doing is more than being charitable. They're subverting the law of the land.

At any rate, I don't think this provision will be in any final agreement. It's most likely a bargaining chip that the House will give up when it comes time for haggling conference.

As far as fundies not liking Hispanics, don't make me laugh. The people who make these kinds of statements are usually as big a bunch of ill-informed bigots as they make their enemies out to be. The fastest growing religious groups these days are fundie Protestant Hispanics. Here in Houston there are gazillion Spanish-speaking churches. When I was a Baptist growing up, we had several members who were missionaries who not only spoke Spanish but also had extensive experience in Latin America.

Also of note:
Thirty-six Democrats voted for the measure.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/1/votes/661/

In fact, they made up the margin of victory, so spare me the usual breast-beating about right-wing Republicans. The devil may be in the details, but in broad terms, public support is behind this bill, and Pelosi knows it, which is why she let her fellow Democrats vote their "conscience."

-- Reality check No. 2: The work of migrants is indispensable to many industries, from agriculture to construction.

Saw that as I scrolled by, and I don't think the "jobs no American will do" meme is true. To be accurate, it's "jobs no American will do for those wages."

There are quite a few states that have very few illegal immigrants in their populations, and somehow the crops come in, the hotel sheets get changed, and the lawns get mowed. I suspect they just pay more to get it done.

No industry is going to be destroyed by cutting the flow of illegal immigration.

Jesus loved everyone, not just those with valid passports.

And "rendering unto Caesar" does not mean "extraordinary rendition" no matter which way you look at it.

If it becomes a crime to "assist" an illegal alien, then logically I should demand proof of citizenship from anyone who I talk to. Including Congressmen -- how do I know he's a citizen? For a Congressman, I'd ask to see passport and certified copy of birth certificate (or original of naturalization papers).

One more time: what are we FOR? Cuz if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. (See 1996, when immigration lawyers and foundation grant letterheads stiffed the Jordan Commission and severed the Ellis Island connection between immigration and citizenship.)

Politics first:

Ya got your immigration lawyers, your liberals, and your libertarians.

Lawyers want vague law, because that's how they make money off their clients; that's why there are so few bright line distinctions between legal and illegal (245i?), permanent and temporary (the H-1b?).

Liberals love it when Congress makes promises, but care somewhat less if Congress ever delivers: when the core choices of GOVERNING come up (siblings or spouses?), liberals are happy to advocate for ever more unhappy people oppressed by the government, because they promptly work to create more(the outlaw and exile provisions enacted in 1996 were a direct result of this 'strategy'.)

Libertarians are bought and paid for: both the toleration of illegal workers and guest worker programs are SUBSIDIES. These guys are for free markets the way prostitutes advocate marital chastity.

Substance abuse:

What are WE for? Citizenship (which means rejecting illegal immigration AND the guest worker scam). Families (which means delivering the millions of visas Congress has promised but failed to deliver).

And the rule of law: get OVER this crap that calling a cat a fish will help it swim underwater. "Earned legalization" is AMNESTY, and not only won't it pass, it wouldn't work if it did.

You stop illegal immigration at the border, the airport and the worksite (electronic verification of the SSN), not the clinics, the churches and the classrooms. BUT THAT REQUIRES PROGRESSIVES TO MAKE CHOICES -- to say what we're for.

How come folks in this thread won't do that? (See liberals, promises, delivery; above.)

.

This has probably already been mentioned but here it goes.

IMO the easiest way to stop illegal immigration is to put stiff penalties on employing illegals. And enforcing the penalties. That's it. Nothing else. With a few high profile cases of putting employers in jail or fining the crap out of them, massive illegal immigration will end in a few years.

And I agree with tbrosz that basically it is a bunch of baloney that noone will do the jobs that the immigrants do today. It is all matter of what the pay is. I see plenty of unionized construction workers working their collective asses off at some pretty tough jobs. They do it because it pays well. This seems so obvious to me.

-

Let me clear something up, I am not in favor of illegal immigration because no nation can survive without a clear immigration policy. I think we need to enforce reasonable and effective immigration laws.

That said I do not support the proposed law, because as written it is obviously intended to assist certain employers in certain industries who routinely exploit illegal aliens. Without the outreach programs of various churches (notably the Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and other mainline denominations) illegal aliens will be further exploited. It is harder for a big chicken coop manager to exploit his illegal alien workers when the church outreach people see and report the exploitation.

As to the comments that without illegal aliens a lot of work won't get done, I think Tbrosz is right this time. Without illegal aliens the chickens will still be fed and the houses will still be built, but workers will be paid at least a minimum wage and worker safety will be enhanced.

Criminalizing Christian outreach is just wrong. Sensenbrenner should be called on obvious act of corporate payoff. By the way, he is one of those Republicans who should be at the top of the list of targets in the next election. He is just plain odious. I know he is the richest guy in Congress, and is probably in a safe district, but that shouldn't stop the Democratic party from putting up a lot of money to take him down. Even if the Democrats lose he needs to learn to treat all men and women with dignity and respect. His constituents need to be told of his exploits on behalf of big business. Anybody running against him?

I'm a liberal Democrat and against illegal immigration. There are many others. This is not just a "Conservative Republican" issue.

Both Dems and Repubs allow the immigration because big business wants it. That it hurts the local communities involved is never an issue.

Mexico should deal with its overpopulation problem. Maybe the excess population could go live in the Vatican?

USA should enforce the border.

Once again Dems are missing the point. It's not about prosecuting anyone. It's about appearing "tough" on immigration in the '06 elections, while painting the Dems as weak, wimpy and for open borders and illegal immigration with the attendant loss of jobs and having to pay taxes for illegals' education, health etc.

Dems better wake up and devise a strategy to counter this. It looks like immigrants are going to be the scapegoats of '06 like gays were in the '04 elections and minorities were for the Republicans in prior elections. Republican failed and cruel policies and corruption will be overlooked and once again, beating up on an unpopular group will be the issue. If Dems don't make the issue into the Republicans sending jobs overseas and not punishing the companies that hire illegally (and instead giving them tax breaks), in '06 they will be left wondering once again why they lost.

Anyone who can't see this ought to take a look at the Republican attack on Leslie Byrne in Virginia in November.

What immigration policy are we FOR?

(BTW -- the House bill doesn't help employers in certain industries that hire illegals. It provides an incentive -- a safe harbor from fines -- for employers who electronically verify through DHS and the Social Security Administration that new hires are legit. N.B. -- this COULD be a private enterprise step -- email me if you want to know more.)

Chrissy is right.

I'm definitely liberal, and there is a lot in the Tancredo bill I can't support. But here in Arizona, we don't understand why the Federal Government can't control the border. I haven't seen any polls, but I think most Arizonans feel the same way.

Securing our borders is a basic government responsibility. While the Wall Street Journal is quite comfortable with porous borders -- as long as we are eavesdropping on every phone conversation in the US to catch terrorists -- people who deal with the fall out on a daily basis don't like it. This issue cuts across partisan lines, and liberals should recognize the honest concerns that are helping drive the Tancredo bill.

The obvious solution is to shut the border down and start controlling input.

Yes, let's put a big "Closed" sign on the border and tell all the Mexicans to please fly to New York instead.

clem, I am a conservative through and through although we agree entirely on immigration. Both parties allow this for not only big business but to help build their "base" among the influx of the new immigrants. We must all hold our politicians accountable on this matter in the next few elections. Liberals and conservatives need to remind their politicians who their real base is and what we expect from them on the immigration issue.

But here in Arizona, we don't understand why the Federal Government can't control the border.

I think since the early nineties the federal government has literally trebbled the number of border guards on the Mexican frontier, to little effect. Radically reducing the flow of illegal immigrants via security measures is probably technically feasible, but incredibly expensive. We're looking at Iron Curtain-style measures if we're trully serious: mine fields, a huge, high, barbed wire-topped wall, thousands more border guards, etc. The cost wouldn't simply be enormous, it would likely be unaffordable. Even the USA has its limits.

A lot of people are expecting miracles on the demand side, ie, targeting employers. But here, too, I'm deeply skeptical. If it were simply a matter of reading the riot act to the Fortune 1000 it would be easy, but that's not what's at issue here. The vast majority of illegals find work in tiny firms in sectors like construction, landscaping, restaurants, etc. In other words, there are literally hundreds of thousands -- and maybe even several million -- "targets firms" for the crackdown. I don't see it happening.

Only comprehensive reform including a substantial degree of decriminalization can reduce the flow of illegal immigrants. Decriminalization, of course, means a healthy increase in legal immigration admissions specifically targeting those who would otherwise hire coyotes and sneak across the border. This shouldn't be objectionable to anybody who is concerned with illegal immigration but has no problem with the legal kind. But of course that's usually not the case. The Tancredo crowd in particular is oppposed to immigration in general, not just the undocumented variety.

I met a woman in the Eighties who was part of the underground railroad helping to bring Central Americans to safety from political death squads. She was part of some church, Presbyterian, I think. Since the death squads were organized and funded by US policy, it only stands to reason that the makers of such policies would want to enforce similar authority on their own dissidents.

I would prefer to see the borders opened and allow all peoples to move freely, kind of like it is in the US, where people can move from state to state without having their humanity called illegal. Calling immigrants legal would prevent their slave like exploitation, too. Borders are arbitrary, as are nations, let's erase our borders and welcome everyone into the community of mankind rather than try to delimit which human is legal and which human is not.

Thanks, P.B. Almeida. The thing to bear in mind with this bill is that it is not serious, but that substantial unserious parts of it are likely to become law next year if Republicans and conservative Democrats think:

(1) doing so will satisfy the wolves howling for harsher and harsher immigration “reform,” some of them in this very thread, and

(2) the rest of us won’t notice or will give them a pass for reasons of political expediency.

That is the political economy of racism, as it has ever been. And before I get flamed by people claiming anti-immigrant or immigration restrictionist views are not always race-based... granted. But it is undeniable that the core of the anti-immigrant movement is full of the slimiest of race hatred. and that all of its leading organizations have white supremacist links.

This bill and the ugly political impulse behind it have little to do with honest policy. Which is why it was so disturbing to learn that House Democratic political leaders, Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer, secretly twisted the arms of vulnerable Democrats to vote in favor of the bill (then voting against it, themselves).

Same as it ever was. Do they pay no attention to history? These kinds of wolves cannot be appeased.

To clarify, I'm not for open borders. I do support a saner and reality-based immigratiaon policy. Our current laws are harmful to all concerned.

So, BeReal: what are you FOR?

Ya got your immigration lawyers, your liberals, and your libertarians.

Lawyers are a big part of the Democratic constituency and it should be very interesting watching the immigration lawyers going up against the class action lawyers on the issue of immigration.

The Big News that broke yesterday was the class action settlement in Yakima that dealt with an employer hiring illegals and causing harm to local citizens. The class action lawyers were using RICO (!! LOL) statutes and going for treble damages. Here are more details:

William Zirkle has agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle a lawsuit accusing him and two other executives at the Selah-based fruit company of conspiring to hire thousands of illegal immigrants in order to keep wages low. . . . .

Had Zirkle lost at trial, he and the other defendants, Gary Hudson and William Wangler, could have faced triple damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The case obtained class-action status in 2004, which increased the number of legal workers potentially eligible for damages to 20,000,

Chicago lawyer Howard Foster filed the case in 2000 using RICO in a novel way. Although Van Sickle dismissed the case in 2001, Foster won at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002. . . .

Foster, who writes occasionally for an anti-immigration Web journal called VDARE.com, is using RICO with mixed results. The U.S. Supreme Court could bring some certainty to the matter next year when it hears a case against Mohawk Industries. The Georgia carpet company is accused of hiring illegal workers and depressing the wages of legal workers.

Edgley said he wanted to go to trial and thinks the settlement will encourage Foster to sue more employers just to get them to settle.

The Republicans don't have the guts to clamp down on illegal immigration for fear of upsetting their business constituency. The Democrats don't have the guts to clamp down for fear of upsetting the illegal immigrant constituency that they hope will eventually vote democratic. Leave it to the class action lawyers to be the badguys, as long as they get their contingency fees paid, and employers will face legal liability for conspiring to hire illegals in order to force down wage rates. WIll employers absorb the legal settlements as a cost of business or will they rather hire citizens and legal immigrants?

Yes, let's put a big "Closed" sign on the border and tell all the Mexicans to please fly to New York instead.

No, what we want is a sign that essentially says, "Quit jumping the fence, wait your turn and use the door." There are scores of legal entry points between Mexico and the United States.

Yo, Derek: How long would you sleep in a different country than your wife and kids?

"Curtain-style measures if we're trully serious: mine fields, a huge, high, barbed wire-topped wall, thousands more border guards, etc. The cost wouldn't simply be enormous, it would likely be unaffordable. Even the USA has its limits."

Run the numbers, instead of thinking with your emotions. About 2000 miles of border. The annual defense budget is about $400 BILLION. That's $200,000,000 of defense budget per mile. We could build TWO high tech Israeli style border walls the whole length of that border, and fill in between them with a mine field, in ONE year, and it would still be just a blip in the federal budget.

So they trebbled manpower. Three times bupkis is still bupkis. Border enforcement gets a pittance spent on it, because they're INTENDED to fail. By both parties, and I doubt your party's motives are any cleaner than the Republicans'; Both parties' money men delight in workers who don't have access to the legal system.

Run the numbers, instead of thinking with your emotions. About 2000 miles of border. The annual defense budget is about $400 BILLION. That's $200,000,000 of defense budget per mile. We could build TWO high tech Israeli style border walls the whole length of that border, and fill in between them with a mine field, in ONE year, and it would still be just a blip in the federal budget.

Brett: I have thought quantitatively. If you're going to accuse me of "thinking with my emotions" you might at least consider providing a stat or two to bolster your claims about the supposed affordability of adopting an "Iron Curtain" quality barrier between the US and Mexico. My guesstimate would be something approaching $1 trillion over ten years.

The reason that figure is so high is that a border, even a walled-one, is only as good as the army manning it. And that's exactly what we're looking at if we're truly talking about making our southern border impassable -- a sizable standing "army" of border guards. Probably at minimum 200,000 personnel are needed for such a task. Lest you find such numbers exaggerated, let me assure you that I agree with your characterization of our border presence as "bupkis". The latest numbers I've seen suggest we have something like 10,000 agents for the entire southern border. We might as well leave it unguarded. Insuring a genuinely secure border with Mexico effectively amounts to installing a military presence.

Remember, nobody works a 168 hour week, so recruting a border gurard of 200,000 would still leave us with only a few dozen agents per mile at peak times -- probably considerably less than that when you consider that a certain percentage of any recruitment drive will go toward staffing the extra, necessary administrative positions. Moreover, politics (and indeed common sense, given the times we live in) would necessitate at least some bolstering of our border with Canada -- a border more than twice as long as that with Mexico. So again, the numbers I'm suggesting aren't unrealistic, and may well lie toward the low end of what is likely to be effective.

Think of what it would cost to train all those people. It can cost upwards of $250k to train some US military personnel. No doubt the per head charge wouldn't be quite so high for border guards, but it must surely be in the tens of thousands. You've obviously got to pay them once they're on staff, and provide benefits. And, of course, you've got to start the whole process over when an agent leaves or is dismissed. Then there's the cost of new facilities. And there's the physical costs of bolstering the border itself. All those constructions costs. All the high tech devices. Two thousand miles worth -- a major engineering project. Plus holding pens. Plus equipment.

I don't think the country can afford it, and stand by my words. Of course, neither one of us can really prove the other wrong, because we both know perfectly well the country isn't going to rip a whole in the budget large enough to accommodate what would amount to an additional armed service plus a 2,000-mile Israeli-quality defensive wall. Which, come to think of it, merely strengthens my contention.

Yo, Derek: How long would you sleep in a different country than your wife and kids?

I wouldn't. Isn't that point?