Immigration is not a clear issue for dems.

1) There is the Hispanic vote. Dems gain by increasing immigration.

2) There is the black and underclass vote. These folks do not look at immigration as a good thing. Rather, it is competition.

3) If immigration includes a real loosening of the H1-B visa system, you will see a huge rejection by high-tech dems like myself. We do not want a vast horde of educated scabs coming here to destroy the wage scale for high-tech workers.

Guest worker programs had better include ONLY jobs Americans WON'T do. Bill Gates and me have REALLY different ideas of the need for billions of Indian coders. I don't see the need. For Bill, he wants cheap labor.

Once again, Democrat racebaiting makes it impossible to form good policy.

Republican: "I think we ought to enforce our immigration laws."
Democrat: "WHY DO YOU HATE MEXICANS???"
Republican: "But it's race neutral. We'd treat illegal immigrants from, say, Britain the same as ones from Mexico..."
Democrat: RACIST!

Under that paradigm, it's impossible to have a grown-up discussion. And, of course, any attempt to prevent illegal immigrants from stealing public services is also smeared.

Congrats Democrats. You hurt the nation, but did manage to get some political points out of it. Hope you're proud.

It's kinda awkward for me to be the one bringing this up, but I think Kevin is putting too much faith in the number of items Bush can carry around in his noggin at one time.

Note Kaus just spent the entire campaign claiming the Republican House was the only thing blocking amnestry. I tend to find Kaus amusing but this sort of cynical maneuver does help me understand why he is so hated in some circles.

Golly, brown people scare my Al so much! We just have to do something to protect Al from them (and gays!).

Oh, you Dems, always hurting the nation. And providing Hawk with a lifetime supply of straw!

There is the black and underclass vote. These folks do not look at immigration as a good thing. Rather, it is competition.

In Georgia, where immigration played at least a part in the last election, the exit polls showed black voters and those who described the economy as "not so good" were among those most supportive of providing a legal status to undocumented immigrations.

Those most supportive of deportation? Those who thought the economy was "excellent."

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=82985

If just immigration reform would be a boon for Democrats among Hispanic voters, if it won't alienate other supporters, and if a lot of Republicans - including Bush - already agree on it, why not push it?

To POed Liberal's comments above, I'd add that there is also the environmental aspect of immigration. Insofar as immigration goes, nothing has frustrated me more (a frustration a number of others I know have also expressed) than the almost complete lack of comment in recent debates about the impact on America's environment that millions upon millions of new residents has had and will continue to have.

Sadly, environmental concerns were in recent years hijacked by people who -- it strongly appears -- were basically racists simply looking for a figleaf to hide behind. Also, certain virulently anti-environmental corporate forces saw it as a possible way to split the conservation community, and so -- for example -- we saw a divisive battle at the Sierra Club awhile back over a slate of rabid anti-immigration types trying to seize control of the Club's Board of Directors.

Frankly, the issue of immigration -- because it IS so wrapped up with questions about race -- can be an extremely difficult one to discuss. The Minute Men anti-immigrant types are shot through with out-and-out Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation followers (as David Neiwert at Orcinus has repeatedly documented); like the paid serial troll up above, they sanctimoniously try to pretend that their concerns have to do with enforcing the law (or, in my community, "protecting America's environment") when the real agenda is race-driven rage and fear.

Wish I had any brilliant solutions to all of this, but in fact, I think Kevin is right: the whole topic is just a minefield for both Parties right now, and that may incline both to push it to a back burner.

My view on the "environmental" aspect of immigration is that it's just part and parcel of the environmental problem as a whole. Push for stronger conservation, use of alternative fuels, and just generally reducing the environmental footprint of the average American, and the "environmental impact of immigration" will diminish proportionately.

In any case, the idea that immigration is an environmental problem leaves the environmental movement wide open to the traditional attack that environmentalists are anti-prosperity - and frankly, in this case I'm not entirely unsympathetic to that line of argument.

All in good time, but let's deal with min. wage, Medicare, AMT, college costs, and oh yeah, Iraq.

Congrats Democrats. You hurt the nation, but did manage to get some political points out of it. Hope you're proud.

Congratulations Republicans. You hurt the nation and it's standing in the world and you started an illegal war that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's just to make political hay.

Hope you're proud.

See how easy that was? I can do this all day, Bulgarian Pigeon.

Mithrandir:

I consider myself a strong environmental voter, and I concur. It's like tabling the so-called population explosion; it was a good thing for the movment. I hate NIMBYism; I'm damn glad that Deval Patrick supports the Cape Cod Project Wind over the objections of his two wealthy senators.

I think Dems should push giving illegals a path to citizenship as a way to push *up* wages. I think Dems should, at very least, embrace the Lou Dobbs argument that the people who *really* want the status quo are Republican business interests. Whether we suffer with cognitive dissonance about this or not as committed, ideological (in a good sense) Democrats -- immigration is very much part of the populist wave that elected so many of our new freshmen.

We need a way to harness this view of illegals and make it a question of economic justice for everybody. Pushing up the wage scale of recent immigrants supports the wage scale of all lower income workers.

Bob

One way to reduce the price-competitive edge of employing illegal immigrants would be to make them undeportable if their employer was under investigation for wage or safety violations, with some sort of automatic (transportable) work permit granted if the employer was actually punished for committing the violations. This makes it much more difficult for unscrupulous employers to play the "we'll report you if you report us" game. And yes, there are ways to game the system, but I tried to devise a set of rules that would make that risky and unprofitable.

There's no obvious way to deal with immigration reform, and nothing remotely close to consensus in the US. It's a timebomb for Dems, just as for the Republicans. They should avoid it in favor of real reforms. Better wages and jobs, an end to predatory capitalism, will have much more effect upon average Americans.

"Mickey may be right."

No. That can't be it. Any other theories?

The voters were clear about their priorities, Iraq, corruption and Iraq. Immigration is a tough issue for both parties. It would be a mistake to overreach on this divisive issue and thereby delay action on the voters' top priorities.

The mandate to counter corruption will require shining the light into the darkest parts of this secretive administration. It will require transparency and accountability, the very features our State Dept insists on for "emerging democracies." The revelations that will come out of the necessary hearings will not be pretty for Republicans, but they were unwise to think so much deception and secrecy would go unexposed.

Reducing energy dependence and incentivizing alternative energy has so many benefits (stop funding terrorism, opt out of oil wars, support the American farmer, create jobs, reduce greenhouse gases) I believe it should be the centerpiece of a cohesive strategy that provides the perfect contrast to the petroleocracy (or is it an oilogarcy?) of the GOP.

Hey, POed Lib, Get a Job!!!

Yeah, I know you already have one... but the point remains - if you're such a worthless waste of space that you can be replaced by an Indian fresh off the boat at half your salary then you should be.

Upgrade your skills, learn how to make yourself more valuable, develop business skills so you can manage those H1-Bers, and stop whining.

Mama's boy...

"Mickey may be right."

No. That can't be it. Any other theories?

Indeed. The theory that Mickey Kaus could be right about anything, even by accident, has been thoroughly discredited at this stage.

Why is Kevin reading anything by that troll Kaus?

Seriously -- does anyone read Kaus? I guess Kevin does, but anyone else?

Immigration is a dangerous issue, but potentially a pretty big win for the Democrats, if they play it right.

The Democratic position should be something like this:

First, really secure the borders -- north and south -- and not with the stupid fence idea. The fence is a prime example of Grossman's Law: "For every complex problem there is a simple, easy-to-understand, wrong answer.” What's need is a combination of physical barriers, electronic surveillance, and increased patrols. And securing the borders should be combined with securing the shoreline and ports.

Next, make the case on humanitarians and fairness grounds that illegal immigrants that are already in the country should have a path to citizenship. After all, we invited them here. No, we didn't put adds in the local Mexican newspapers, but we let it be known that if you managed to make it across the border you could easily get a job, and as long as you kept your head down you wouldn't get into trouble. In fact, we made sure that it wasn't too hard to get across the border, and if you did happen to get caught you could just try again later.

This is a far more divisive issue for the Repubs than for the Dems. It squares big business interests who want cheap, compliant labor off against the "values" wing who think giving poor people a hard time is a good Christian value.

And let me throw in another idea. How about a guest worker program where the "guests" have to be paid 1.5 time the minimum wage. Let's see if American citizens really don't want those jobs.

aa

This is not a new problem, it was fodder for stoner comedy almost 30 years ago.. Remember Up in Smoke? The scene where the family has called immigration on themselves so they can get shipped back to Mexico for a relatives wedding and they will just sneak back in after the services?

Democrats have bigger fish to fry and may be happy to avoid a fight by putting immigration on hold for a while.

Then they'll be able to tell the American people that they voted for comprehensive immigration reform before they blocked it.

They are for immigration reform. Now that they have the votes, they should pass it.

The idea that the liberals want to give blanket amnesty to illegals in pure bullshit. At least it is as far as this liberal is concerned. The real winners right now are the employers who are exploiting the illegals and driving wages down for native born citizens. There is no jobsite enforcement of the existing laws. We don't need new laws; we just need to enforce the ones that are already on the books. A few months ago INS raided a bakery in Austin that employed six illegal workers. We're talking a full blown raid with guns, warrants, the whole nine yards. Strictly for show because anyone who works construction in Austin (I do) could have told them that ANY major construction project in the city has hundreds of illegals and they're not just 'doing jobs that Americans won't do." They're undercutting wages, working with no benefits --let the emergency rooms handle that--and displacing many long term American workers. In years past construction jobs were loaded with college students during the summer; today there are none. Blacks used to make up a large part of construction crews. They've been replaced by illegals in all except the unionized crews. If we want to stop the flood of illegals we have to go after the employers and that would alienate some large scale political donars. The laws are already on the books; they're just not being enforced. Immigration reform that does not maintain the pool of cheap labor for employers will never pass. On the other hand, if we don't do something soon, we may as well move the US border north from the Rio Grande to the Red River.

MatthewRMarler:

I agree. At the very least, the Dems shouldn't push back on this if Bush brings it up in the new congress.

I think Dems should make the overarching case that border security is important -- but subordinate to the border security we need against Islamist terrorists (linking those two issues so that fence-supporters begin to understand the trandeoffs involved and prioritize) -- and that making illegals citizens helps support low-income wages.

What Dems should *not* do is to take a de-facto laissez-faire non-position on immigration.

It's a potentially explosive issue for many of the populists who voted for us.

Bob

Kaus argues that when we give legal status to the 12 million here, they will move up one economic level and Mexico will replentish the base of the pyramid with 16 million more, then they get amnesty and we will start on the next level. No matter how accomodating you are as a liberal - as opposed to the insensitive Repub types - there is some tipping point where the most compassionate person will be compassioned out. I like the idea of 1.5 of the minimum wage being required for guest worker wages. I'd also like to see the taxes/fees on H1-B visas increased at least as high as the average headhunter's fee for filling professional jobs. I still think we should be telling Mexico and Central America that we are not going to be their safety valve forever. When we get a rational, non-discriminatory guest worker program young men from Bangledesh, India, etc. will already have English proficiency and will be willing to work for a fraction of what the Hispanics consider a living wage.

whether the dems have the actual votes to pass immigration reform is entirely beside the point of whether or not they should do so now, or wait until a time when they can maximally use their position against the repubs.

there's breathing room here. based on Kevin's analysis, bush seems unwilling to take a lead on the issue anymore. since the white trash wing of the repubs will never go along with his previous version of immigration reform, the dems can afford to wait and either force bush's hand towards a bipartisan and equitable (and popular) policy, or watch this lame duck prez forego the possibility of any future latino votes by capitulating to the minutemen-type extremists. ... then throw his words back in his face.

Illegal immigration can be solved in 5 minutes, with the political will:

1) Mandatory jail time for employers who hire illegal immigrants. That will stop illegal immigration cold.

2) National ID cards that every new employee must show, to prevent discrimination against Hispanics and other ethnic groups. We need to get over the supposed privacy objections, which can no longer be justified in the face of massive illegal immigration.

3) Mandatory jail time for possession of a forged ID card. Employers will be immunized against employees showing fake ID cards.

4) Guest workers should be allowed only where absolutely necessary, like agriculture.

5) Some kind of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here, to prevent our economy from falling apart when employers stop hiring them. We may also need to loosen our limits on legal immigration to continue providing enough manpower for our economy.

Even hard-rock conservatives should accept limited amnesty for immigrants who are already here, if it truly ends the flow of new illegal immigrants in the future.

sparky, you're right. There are a lot of citizens who want those jobs, but not at near slave labor wages.

Also, enforcing current laws about employing illegal is a given. Our current lack of enforcement is nothing but an invitation for illegals to come to our country. The Repubs blame it all on the illegal workers, but as the old saying goes, "it takes two to tango." The businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants are just as illegal as the immigrants if not more so, since they are the ones who extended the invitation. And the government is a duplicitous co-conspirator in this game by failing to provide employers with an effective way to check employees citizenship status (not that employers want it).

aa

I guess it's a sign of progress when the obstinate foolhardiness of the ACLU and "civil rights" lobbies opposing a national ID card is now blamed on big biz and the Repubs.

rosswords, I agree with almost everything, except: Guest workers should be allowed only where absolutely necessary, like agriculture.

I strongly suspect that there are plenty of citizens who would be thrilled to get jobs picking strawberries, but not at minimum wage (or less).

Don't know about you, I'd much rather work outdoors in a field than in an underground coal mine "where the rain never falls and the sun never shines", but there are a lot of of American citizens who work underground mines. They don't do it because the work is easy, the do it because the money is good.

So, how about requiring that employers who hire guest workers pay at least 1.5 times the minimum wage? Let's see if they really can't hire citizens.

aa

Why do they always have to be Blue Ribbon Commissions? Why not Green or Black once in a while?

rosswords,

Hard-rock conservatives don't need man's laws. They have the only law that matters, The Bible. You should read what Jesus has to say about immigration and employer's responsibilities. It might help you see the truth of the matter, and why the Democrats will lose.

aaron aardvarka
We're on the same page but the government has a way check sitizenship status. Employers are required to see two forms of identification prior to hiring, but the government doesn't follow up to see if the social security numbers, driver's licenses, and birth certificates are valid: a simple matter by simply checking existing government data bases and notifying employers of suspect employees. But employers already know that the workers are illegal--safety meetings on construction projects have to be conducted in English and Spanish and many employees are listed as independant sub-contractors instead of hourly employees who have to have taxes withheld and reported to the IRS. Don't get the idia that I'm some sort of racist, I'm not. If I lived in Mexico I'd be swimming that river every night if I had to. The problem is the Mexican economy which is a Republican dream world--a few at the top enjoying inherited wealth and power and an unlimited supply of cheap labor to be exploited. We need a foreign policy that addresses the economic situation in Mexico instead of trying to duplicate it in the U S which would bring us to the horrible 'death tax', but that's another issue. The continued influx of illegals is an anchor holding the middle class wages,but it's a windfall for corporate America.

"You should read what Jesus has to say about immigration and employer's responsibilities."

WTF? Jesus was silent on these topics.

Jeffrey sayest: "You should read what Jesus has to say about immigration and employer's responsibilities. It might help you see the truth of the matter, and why the Democrats will lose."

You mean something like:

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. - Leviticus 19:33-34

Or maybe:

Do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another. - Zechariah 7:10

aa

no aaron ... he meant what JAY-SOOS has to say about immigration.

When Clinton came into office, prosecution of businesses hiring undocumented aliens spiked as the real culprits were taken to task. Prosecution of businesses went from a couple of hundred per year to approximately 1500 per year. The numbers fell as businesses realized they would be held accountable for their hiring practices. When Bush 43 came into office, installed by big bidness, prosecutions of these businesses dropped steadily, to the point that a whopping three were prosecuted for hiring undocumented labor in 2004.

ITS TIME TO KICK BUSH TO THE CURB.

Ain't it true that low-skill wages are driven down by the arrival of more and more illegals? Tomorrow's border-crosser will perform today's $1/hr. job for 90 cents.

Stop illegal immigration, and you stop slave wages. Or conversely, raise the minimum wage and you regain local worker interest in those low-skill jobs.

(gum wrapper speech)

What do the Democrats have at all to gain from helping Bush get an immigration bill passd, assuming of course that both sides would like to see one passed. They have to know if a bill was in fact passed that both Bush and the Democrats liked, Bush would claim whatever upside credit came from the bill much like Homeland Security. At this point, they have no need to help Bush.

Kevin,

Here's my kinda sorta realist take on this, and my advice to the Democrats is "Keep it simple": Provide for a limited amnesty for Mexican and Central American workers who've labored incredibly hard for many years at poverty wages doing dirty jobs at meatpacking plants and picking fruit, jobs that Americans really don't want to do. They've paid into our Social Security and our tax base but haven't received the benefits themselves, and thus, Mexican and Central American illegal aliens really do deserve an amnesty. Just leave it at that, and don't complicate matters with all sorts of attached strings-- just give them amnesty and legal permanent resident and work status, followed by the opportunity to stay here as citizens.

In fact, I do suspect that there will be a kind of tailored amnesty for Mexican illegal immigrants and other Latinos who have already been laboring in the country for years and basically supporting the most fundamental aspects of our economy, including food acquisition and distribution.

Remember, this sort of a basic amnesty doesn't have to be part of an omnibus immigration reform bill, which probably has far too many hot buttons to get passed-- a basic amnesty like this could just be wrapped in another big bill, for example, an appropriations bill and be passed within it, with less fanfare.

This would definitely net many Democratic votes (though for 2012, not 2008-- the newly amnestied Latino voters wouldn't have qualified to vote by then), although Republicans could win over at least some of them perhaps, with social conservative stands. However, more importantly, I do sense that overall, this sort of an amnesty strikes people from both parties as being basically fair.

After all, the currently "illegal" Mexican and Central American immigrants toil incredibly hard for very low wages and contribute to our Social Security fund, without reaping the benefits for themselves and their families. It's only fair to legalize them, and I suspect that this would be a winner for the Democrats.

That is, rather than spending a ridiculous amount of time on a big, hulking immigration reform bill that would be killed as it gets weighed down with more and more amendments, just keep it simple-- incorporate an amnesty for Mexicans and Central Americans who've worked here in low-wage jobs for many years, into another bill, and then just leave it at that.

The Democrats should really just focus on that sort of a limited amnesty for hard-working Mexicans and Central Americans, and stay away from any attempt at "comprehensive" reform or taking other steps that would explode in opposition and cause the Democrats massive humiliation and failure.

For example, the legal immigration numbers should be kept where they are or slightly increased (to maybe a million or so) to accomodate for family reunification for the amnestied ex-illegals. The idea of Hagel and Martinez to practically double those legal immigration levels, provoked a level of rage (even among many self-described liberals) on talk shows and in letters to the editor as I've never seen before-- too many people, across party lines, are already feeling too much urban strain in things like traffic and crime, to justify such an increase in immigration levels.

A limited amnesty for Mexicans and Central Americans would have a modest and sustainable effect overall, and would be something like a one-time thing, thus could be absorbed by the USA in general. OTOH, the idea of Hagel and Martinez to basically double our annual immigration levels would be long term and would place far, far too much strain on cities and states, and their various social services, that are already feeling far too much strain. We can hardly build enough schools, hospitals and highways for the population that we have-- we shouldn't double immigration levels like that, it's an extreme that would be far too much.

Also, I think the idea of increasing H1B's, for e.g. high-tech workers from India or nurses from the Philippines, is a terrible idea that should be rejected. Even if you don't agree with all the statements that POed Lib makes, his opinions are widely held and very real among the US tech, skilled and professional community, and they can't be ignored. US professionals are already under tremendous economic strain, as outsourcing and the importation of people on the H-1's really has devastated many sectors of our domestic economy.

Already, many universities are finding it next to impossible to fill even half their engineering and science classes with American students, since they sense-- probably correctly-- that there probably isn't much of a future in those technical fields if the American graduates are basically expendable, and can be so easily replaced with imported labors on an H1B visa. I've worked as an advisor for students considering careers, and the aversion to anything in tech really is hitting catastrophic levels-- motivated, intelligent kids really don't want to go into tech if there's so little job security for it, and if the H1B program overwhelms them. Don't expand the H1B program-- if anything, we should be shrinking this program.

Likewise, Sam Brownback's idea of importing millions of Filipino nurses is absolutely insane, for both our countries. It would basically devastate the health care system of the Philippines, which has already lost many nurses and is straining to stay afloat. It's barely functioning as it is, and a US invitation for all those nurses would basically cause it to collapse. Likewise, on our end, such a program would be devastating to the wages and bargaining power of American nurses.

People talk a lot about the lack of trained nurses in the USA. But the solution to this is to do what far too many states have been too hesitant or lazy to do-- build more nursing schools, sponsor more nursing programs here, and pay nurses a fair wage.

Once again, the mantra for Democrats should be: Keep it simple. Pass a one-time limited amnesty for the illegal aliens who've suffered the most and given the most to our country, that is, the Mexicans and Central Americans who've worked so hard on the fields and in difficult jobs for such low wages, and yet have not received the benefits of social services and Social Security into which they've paid, through their tax dollars and FICA contributions. Then, just stop there-- don't push for other major reforms that if anything would strain already stressed sectors of our economy, and if anything, reduce the H1B provisions somewhat.

Once again, the mantra for Democrats should be: Keep it simple. Pass a one-time limited amnesty for the illegal aliens who've suffered the most and given the most to our country, that is, the Mexicans and Central Americans who've worked so hard on the fields and in difficult jobs for such low wages, and yet have not received the benefits of social services and Social Security into which they've paid, through their tax dollars and FICA contributions. Then, just stop there-- don't push for other major reforms that if anything would strain already stressed sectors of our economy, and if anything, reduce the H1B provisions somewhat.

And then what? Let another group sneak in, stay for several years, and give them amnesty??

Once again, the mantra for Democrats should be: Keep it simple.

Like Karen Simon writes, keep it simple. Democrats should build a wall, secure the border, demonstrate to the American public that our borders can be controlled. Then we can start both selective deportation and earned citizenship and arrive at a fair midpoint.

There should be no rewards for breaking the law.

What about the employers who hire the illegals in the first place, Tango? What do you propose we do with them?

癌症
癌症
尖锐湿疣
中国康网
尖锐湿疣
排铅
成人用品
尖锐湿疣治疗

中国康网
健康导航
资讯中心
男性健康
女性健康
两性健康
大众健康
母婴健康
疾病大全
中医中药
医学知识
药学知识
药品大全

Another thing about the H1-B visa program-- a reduction in its numbers could be coupled with e.g. incentives to help expand math and science education in the USA.

In any case, we need to do everything we can to combat the rather arrogant attitude of Mike Friedman above, which basically sounds like, "Get over it, you hard-working, well-educated loser engineers in the USA-- you are expendable, so deal with it!"

Again, I'm just speaking frankly here-- this is ridiculously unrealistic. Tech workers in the USA have enormous educational debts to acquire their high-level training (something that those in other countries tend to have less of), plus they have incurred the opportunity cost of forgoing more lucrative careers that require less training (like investment banking and venture capital), plus they have to work incredibly long hours both to succeed in their difficult majors and in their early years of on-the-job training, where they have to learn the basics.

Again, if we basically treat our high-tech workers as expendable and replaceable, then people won't go into these majors in college, and we'll continue to lose our native high-tech base. For bright college students to endure not only the long hours and workload of an engineering or computer science major, but also the lost opportunities elsewhere and the incredibly high costs of educational loans, they have to be given reasonably decent incentives on the other end. The already too-large H1-B visa system basically kills these incentives and is wreaking havoc on our pool of young people interested in these careers-- and, thus, on our native tech industries in general. I know, I've seen this firsthand-- even in traditionally tech-friendly universities, interest in engineering, computer science and similar majors has fallen off drastically.

Again, this is why IMHO the Democrats (and also the Republicans) would benefit tremendously from a more limited focus on providing amnesty for the poor illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico and Central America, who do the very dirty jobs like hotel maintenance, meat packing and picking fruit. These people really do the jobs that Americans don't want to do, and receive little compensation for it despite their own additional contributions into the US Treasury and Social Security. They deserve amnesty and should receive it, either in a separate bill, or in an amnesty passed in the midst of another bill-- the Democrats should pass that, and then stop there.

Kaus is completely off base here, and it's because he's letting his anti-immigration paranoia torpedo his objectivity. Or, more likely, he's not objective to begin with so he's hoping to influence the debate and stop any possibility of decreasing illegal immigration by increasing legal immigration.

Democrats would be wise to get something done, at least if it's truly a comprehensive reform that relies primarily on undermining the perverse economics driving illegal immigration rather than being a plan that relies primarily on a punitive approach.

The point is: if Democrats can solidify the votes of Latino voters -- really solidify and expand this voting group -- then the GOP is fucked but good, for a long, long time.

Granted, the president will get some of the credit, but as his own party is so hopelessly riven by people with a Lou Dobbs/Tom Tancredo worldview, the GOP will explode in an anti-immigrant rage. I think we could see deep Democratic majorities for decades because of the predictable xenophobic reaction on the part of the GOP to comprehensive immigration reform. Their base in the old Confederacy can't stand the thoughts of brown folks being able to immigrate legally.

Except, wilder and TangoMan, that corporate America already has invited in these millions of "illegals" to do the dirty work that the Americans themselves don't want to do. Giving them amnesty would not be rewarding them for breaking the law, since it's basically powerful US interests that invited them here in the first place-- it would be rewarding them for working so hard for such low wages and for so little opportunity to reap the benefits of their labor in the first place. That, very much, is fair.

BTW, a prior small amnesty was indeed passed by Ronald Reagan and a half-Republican Congress in 1986, and it had a similar basis-- since so many millions of Mexicans and Central Americans had toiled for so long under such conditions in jobs that Americans wouldn't do, they deserved the right to become Americans themselves and reap at least a fraction of what they contributed. If Republicans themselves could decide this in 1986, then a Republican President working with a Democratically-controlled Congress in both houses should be able to accept this, also.

POed Liberal,
"Scab: A slang term for a strike-breaker."
Cool. I did not know H1-B's are strike breakers.
If the USG reduces the number of H1-B's, the coders will not come here, they will stay in their countries and still "take the jobs". And they will do it for a 3rd or a quarter the salary rather than half. This is what happened to the manufacturing jobs that went to China in the 80's and later. Secondly, upto 1/3 or more of all startups in Silicon valley are formed by these "scabs" as you call them. These startups employ Americans. Finally, a major difference between the
U.S and Europe, and what makes this economy so strong is its ability to use immigrants to fuel local economic growth. You cut this ability off, and it is to the loss of the American economy.
I know a lot of people, especially techies, have no problems with globalization, as long as they are not affected by it. Guess what,it cuts both ways.

Finally, for all those whining about illegals, consider this: The reason they survive here is because they fill a real economic need; it is really hypocritical to utilize them and exploit them on the one hand, and complain about them polluting the environment, and taking up services on the other hand. Things like these often make me reconsider my support for the Democratic party.

For bright college students to endure not only the long hours and workload of an engineering or computer science major, but also the lost opportunities elsewhere and the incredibly high costs of educational loans, they have to be given reasonably decent incentives on the other end.

They are given "reasonably decent incentives". That's why young Americans continue to enter fields such as engineering and computer science. The unemployment rate for Americans with technical education credentials is negligible. Wages and benefits in this sector are higher -- in some cases much higher -- than average. The US "imports" proportionally fewer tech workers relative to population than Australia or Canada. If anything, we ought to be working to increase the education levels of our immigrant pool. From a sheer economics perspective, the smarter our immigrants are, the better off we are as a country. If truth be told, the US needs skilled immigrants with technical skills a lot more than it needs illiterate peasants. (I support allowing more of the latter to enter, FWIW, first and foremost because I don't think prohibiting their arrival 100% is feasible, or passes cost/benefit analysis).

Unfortunately, Kevin Drum is a lightweight when it comes to these matters.

Here's an immigration challenge for Kevin Drum (it was originally for Sully, but it applies to Drum as well).

Don't trust Kevin Drum's thoughts on these matters until he starts answering the tough objections to "reform". And, don't worry, there are plenty more tough objections available.

The 1986 Amnesty bill was sponsored by Senator Allan Simpson of Wyoming - He never dreamed that he had helped create a tremendous cottage industry of forged documents - This is when the real surge of illegals came across the border and stayed.

Finally, for all those whining about illegals, consider this: The reason they survive here is because they fill a real economic need; it is really hypocritical to utilize them and exploit them on the one hand, and complain about them polluting the environment, and taking up services on the other hand. Things like these often make me reconsider my support for the Democratic party.

Hi-tech H1-B visa workers do not fill an economic need. They are just scabs. The only people who want them in are scab-loving employers, other scabby H1-B workers and the attorneys who prey upon these scabs.

Which are you?

We don't need foreign scabs in here to do the good jobs. We do need Americans doing these good American jobs.

Amazingly, the entire high-tech sector was invented mostly by Americans over the years 1965-1990. Now that the sector is alive and driving the American economy, all of a sudden we can't survive without foreign scabs. How did Americans get so fucking stupid in 30 years?

If truth be told, the US needs skilled immigrants with technical skills a lot more than it needs illiterate peasants.

I am sure that the thousands of unemployed US hi-tech citizen workers agree with you.

This is the big lie, beloved by free trade wackos and economists. Remember, in today's world, an economist is someone who can prove, mathematically, that some Indian scab is much more deserving of your job than you are.

H1-Bs should be cut to 500/ year.

Republican: "I think we ought to enforce our immigration laws."
Democrat: "WHY DO YOU HATE MEXICANS???"
Republican: "But it's race neutral. We'd treat illegal immigrants from, say, Britain the same as ones from Mexico..."
Democrat: RACIST!

Hawk you get dumber every day.
As if immigration problems just popped up today, Let me remind you the GOP has had since 1994 to DO something about immigration. What did Bush want to do? Refues to get fingerprints and give them Amnesty.
Congrats Hawk dummy, The GOP sat on it's hands for 12 years. Thanks for hurting America by electing do nothing GrOPes

Yeah, I know you already have one... but the point remains - if you're such a worthless waste of space that you can be replaced by an Indian fresh off the boat at half your salary then you should be. -- Friedman

And you can be replaced for half the cost as well!!

Karen Simon: These people really do the jobs that Americans don't want to do, and receive little compensation for it despite their own additional contributions into the US Treasury and Social Security.

Do have any evidence for this, or are you just (unintentionally) regurgitating the Republican talking point. I think it more likely that illegal aliens are taking these jobs because working at McDonald's pays more and is easier. Americans will do difficult, nasty, even dangerous work if the money is there. But they won't, and shouldn't, do these jobs for poverty wages.

If we're to have a just society, the reward for labor should be commensurate with job being performed. In a free market, the level of compensation is set by the balance of supply and demand. It's part of our social contract. Where the problem arises is when big business conspires with the Government to break this contract by bringing in workers from outside of our borders (and taking away worker's rights to organize, for example). This circumvents the free market for labor.

And, it's not the fault of the illegal aliens. They're victims as much as the U.S. workers who's jobs they take.

(As an aside, this isn't an argument against the minimum wage. In fact, when you scratch the surface of any minimum wage job you'll usually find forces at work that artificially keep wages low. The best example if this is restrictions against union organization. Business are free to cooperate (conspire?) to keep wages low, but workers are restricted in their ability to organize by factors such as Taft-Hartley rules and "right to work" laws.)

aa

This is the big lie, beloved by free trade wackos and economists. Remember, in today's world, an economist is someone who can prove, mathematically, that some Indian scab is much more deserving of your job than you are.

Correction they are Economyths

Except, wilder and TangoMan, that corporate America already has invited in these millions of "illegals" to do the dirty work that the Americans themselves don't want to do. Giving them amnesty would not be rewarding them for breaking the law, since it's basically powerful US interests that invited them here in the first place-- it would be rewarding them for working so hard for such low wages and for so little opportunity to reap the benefits of their labor in the first place. That, very much, is fair.

My point was, what makes you think that would even come close to stopping the cycle? The current group is given amnesty, earns a higher wage. Employers troll for more undocumented workers. A new group sneaks in and lives here for several years.

Mithrandir brings up the environmental movement, perhaps not being aware that the SierraClubFoundation got a $100 million donation from someone who told CarlPope that if they came out against immigration they'd never get another dime.

rmck1 says: I think Dems should push giving illegals a path to citizenship as a way to push *up* wages.

Of course, what he doesn't realize is that those same groups that currently support illegal immigration will continue to do so. Result: millions of new legal workers, millions of new illegal aliens.

GreenDreams discusses corruption. Perhaps Kevin Drum could look into companies and even the FederalReserve trying to profit from illegal immigration. I'm sure Kevin Drum is well aware of that, and is also well aware of the extremely dangerous nature of that, and will be discussing it Real Soon Now.

aaron aardvarka discusses the religious/humanitarian grounds, without realizing that allowing illegal immigration is not in the least humanitarian. It makes the situation far worse for everyone involved. If you don't understand why, start doing some research.

rosswords suggests mandatory jail time for employers, without disclosing exactly how we could get to that point. What forces are standing in the way? What forces (hint: our host) enable those forces standing in the way?

Karen Simon needs to keep it much shorter. And, as she might know, we've already had several smaller amnesties since the Big One of '86. And, Bush just extended a "temporary" program for Central Americans for another year. All of those amnesties have built up networks that enable additional illegal immigration.

Overall, I'd like Kevin Drum to start offering answers to all of the objections to amnesty. If he can't do that, please bring in guest bloggers who are more familiar with these matters.

These people really do the jobs that Americans don't want to do, and receive little compensation for it despite their own additional contributions into the US Treasury and Social Security.

This is not true, I used to work in construction doing plumbing, drywall, framing, air conditioning, etc etc. I ended up leaving the because the companies hired so man illegals that I could not afford to work for such low wages. I made more in construction back in the eighties than I do today doing IT and computer work.

Marxist Capitalism is a self defeating system. Companies want the lowest costs and the highest profits. The problem here is that the very people tha are being paid lower and lower wages are the very ones that buy the products they produce.

Like choking yourself to death.

What about the employers who hire the illegals in the first place, Tango? What do you propose we do with them?

Fine them of course. First order of business should be fair warning that aggressive enforcement of existing laws will commence at a future date. This gives employers some time to extricate themselves from the mess. Thereafter they open themselves to fines and more severe penalties.

Yes, this will be hugely disruptive in a visible way, but no more disruptive than the existing state of affairs wherein the ranks of discouraged workers are growing as not reflected in the unemployment data (look to the falling employment/population ratio and look particularly at the dismal ratio for young workers and how drastically it's fallen over the last decade) and lastly the disruption caused by the external costs associated with illegals which fall on the taxpayers as a whole while the illegals and their employers reap the benefits of the subsidies they receive.

Enforcement will result in self-deportation over time. I'd be open to a visa lottery, with the visas awarded being to individual illegals being eligible for auction, so that the lucky visa holder can elect to keep the visa for themselves or auction it to another illegal who can justify paying some market price.

TLB: aaron aardvarka discusses the religious/humanitarian grounds, without realizing that allowing illegal immigration is not in the least humanitarian. It makes the situation far worse for everyone involved. If you don't understand why, start doing some research.

TLB, you either have poor reading skills or selective comprehension. Pleas re-read my posts . . . carefully.

I'm totally opposed to allowing more illegal immigration, as my posts made clear. But it's only right to provide a path to citizenship for those who accepted our invitation and are already here.

aa

I am sure that the thousands of unemployed US hi-tech citizen workers agree with you.

We should base our policies on what is in the national interest, not on what is in the interest of an interest group as tiny as that of "unemployed programmers". Churn is natural in a capitalist economy, and causes far more transitional unemployment that either outshoring or immigration. Far better to strengthen the safety net, so that temporary stints of unemployment aren't a disaster, than pursue the disastrous policies of economic nationalism that make us all poorer (and make the safety net more difficult to afford, to boot). Closing our doors to the talents and knowledge brought by immigrants would be disastrous. Remember that the next time you google.

Jasper: We should base our policies on what is in the national interest, not on what is in the interest of an interest group as tiny as that of "unemployed programmers". etc.

What a bunch of BS . . . on several levels.

The only reason industry is so adamant that H-1Bs are needed is that they can be paid less and they're more compliant. Now many companies are finding out to their chagrin that foreign tech workers aren't really better than their American counterparts. In fact, in most cases they're not as good.

Hiring H-1B workers disincentivizes Americans from entering technical fields that are responsible for America's dominate position in the world economy and are the key to our economic future.

By hiring foreign workers we are in effect giving them on-the-job training that they can take back to their home countries and use against us in the global tech economy.

aa

Oh, and one more thing. Rather than lobbying congress for H-1B authority, companies that can't find enough tech workers should take a different approach . . . TRY PAYING MORE.

aa

We should base our policies on what is in the national interest, not on what is in the interest of an interest group as tiny as that of "unemployed programmers". Churn is natural in a capitalist economy, and causes far more transitional unemployment that either outshoring or immigration. Far better to strengthen the safety net, so that temporary stints of unemployment aren't a disaster, than pursue the disastrous policies of economic nationalism that make us all poorer (and make the safety net more difficult to afford, to boot). Closing our doors to the talents and knowledge brought by immigrants would be disastrous. Remember that the next time you google.

You're either a scumbag repukeliscum or an economist, here to prove that we don't deserve our own jobs. What the world needs is more economists imported from other countries.

And, yes, I am an economic nationalist. There are very few jobs with such special skills as to need foreign "talent". And most of the foreign "talent" is not that talented. Just more compliant.

I hire programmers all the time. Chinese are very crappy, although they look good on paper. Their language skills are crap, and they are very compliant, just not very innovative or self-starting - I have to tell them everything. Americans are much better - you give them a project, they do the project. They don't misunderstand every third thing you say.

Time to invade Mexico - conquer them, make them build roads, and schools, and an economic infrastructure so they have their own jobs, and don't have to come to the US.

Then when the neocons are finished raping our economy, we can cross over into Mexico illegally and pick peppers for 2 pesos a day.

What about the employers who hire the illegals in the first place, Tango? What do you propose we do with them?

Hard time.

Try them for treason - if they're knowingly hiring illegals, they are committing economic treason. If you love America, hire Americans, support the American Economy, pay American Wages, and American Taxes.

I'm too tired to nail it.

Illegal immigration serves one function in Mexico: It eliminates all those with initiative and drive, and sends them to the US.

If they stayed in Mexico, there might actually be some action on the horribly unequal social conditions there.

That's why the Mexican government supports the illegal emigration of its own citizens to the US - remove the firebrands from trouble-maker status.

disclaimer: I have worked for 10 years for the various permutations of INS/CIS/whatever on the benefits side.

I just read an interesting take on this issue in Foreign Affairs mag by someone named Tamar Jacoby, and I shall summarize my take on his plan, which I somewhat disagree with, but think is a good starting point:

First, there has to, HAS TO, be a consistent, energetic enforcement strategy. Yes, there should be better border security, but also interior enforcement. Worksite enforcement is total suck and has been for years, political propaganda like the Wal-Mart janitors raid notwithstanding. The IT infrastructure has existed for years to verify CIS documents using nothing more than a decent internet connection and Windows IE, but employers have resisted this because they would no longer have the excuse of being expected to recognize fake documents. Bear in mind as well that ther is a political issue here; unscrupulous and exploiting employers are rarely, if ever, called out on their behavior, the media instead usually parroting the line that la migra just doesn't understand the economic realities of blah blah blah puke. Get wired into the American public's brain that a boss who would allow a construction worker to break his leg on the job and toss him off the job with no pay is no better than a slaver, and maybe we'll get somewhere.

Second, open up the legal channels. Just like actually enforcing the worksite rules energetically can change attitudes towards immigration, so can revamping the work visa and permanent resident regulations. As it stands, there are artificial caps placed on almost all of the work based and family based green cards, which causes a lot of pain and hardship for families who are torn apart for years due to the lack of available cap numbers, and incredible stress and confusion for employers who want to help prospective employees, but who are assaulted by byzantine regulations, crooked "consultants", and a cap system that grants only 5000 immigrant visas (green cards) per years to those teeming hordes who apparently will do those jobs that Americans won't. I agree with those above who state that H-1b's are a source of cheap labor for tech companies. But H-1b's are also a source of teachers, college professors, lawyers, accountants, doctors, and a myriad of other professions; and h-2b's, which are also becoming quickly unavailable every year due to artificial caps, have been providing seasonal help to willing employers in unskilled jobs for years as well. Legal immigration is not an impossible task, especially when combined with energetic prosecution of illegal activity. If the available numbers go up, the illegal numbers go down.

Last, as much as I hate to admit it, is amnesty. Sure, cover it up by calling it "earned status" or whatever, but it's still amnesty. And it'll be necessary. There's just too many, and as has been mentioned by others above, ther were promised the world on a string by employers who knew that they were doing wrong much more than the illegals did.

Anyway, that's my summary of the Tamar Jacoby plan. Discuss, if you think it's worth discussing.

2006年工作总结 大众健康的博客 关注肝癌 健康网的blog 肝癌浅谈 牛皮癣博客 人与疾病 关注胃癌 关注健康 悯泯之音 黑色幽默 心静的白话字 最后一口 我爱电影 我爱电影 想想未来 喜剧不俗 尘埃博客 秋菠太老博客 乒乓博客 唐诗博客 免费手机铃声

Hmm ... I mentioned, well up above, the environmental impact of the massive influx of immigrants that we've seen over the past 20-30 years. I also pointed out that, sadly, some folks who seem primarily motivated by racism chose to garb their opposition to immigration as an environmental commitment. That's about all I said.

Yet my comment elicited just two more, and both with the red herring argument of "that's NIMBYism."

I have to say their replies are vaguely infuriating, really not that different in kind to those of the D.C. insider pundits who dismissed Feingold's (utterly sincere) efforts to censure Bush as merely an effort to position himself for a presidential run; or who trivialize populist economic arguments by various Democrats as mere political posturing.

I used to live in Santa Barbara, having moved there only a few years after the 1969 oil platform blowout. I know full well that SOME of the very-active Santa Barbarans (often, very well-heeled people indeed) didn't want their view of the Channel marred with oil platforms: classic NIMBYism. But I also know that the vast -- overwhelming -- majority of citizens there were genuinely aghast at the environmental destruction and the tremendous loss in the region's quality of life that even one oil spill had inflicted. They didn't want any more oil production going on just off their beaches, and they didn't particularly want ANY oil development going on of ANY beaches ANYWHERE because it was clearly a threat to the world's environment.

But, of course, nitwits lacking better arguments periodically showed up to heave arguments about NIMBYism at us all.

So now we see the same idiotic argument popping up over immigration. Having lived and worked among and with Hispanics (citizens and immigrants, legal and illegal), and having loved a few of them and respected a hell of a lot more of them, I have just about zero tolerance for anything that looks like racism. That's why I've never been able to join with ANY of the anti-immigrant groups (I did join FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which at the time fooled me about their real motivations. But the charade didn't last long, and within a year or two I angrily resigned).

But the fact is, there ARE some legitimate reasons for being extremely unhappy about the vast flow of immigrants -- legal or otherwise -- into the U.S. A number of those are posted above, notably the frustration many have over immigrants driving down wages and job opportunities for American citizens. But, wait: isn't that just another form of NIMBYism? I think it most assuredly is.

The growth rates of other countries -- China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mexico, and more -- are tremendous. We just passed 300 million people in this country, up from 200 million in around 1967. The next 100 million will only take about half as long, if that. And nearly ALL of that is due to immigration and/or new in-country births by recently-arrived immigrants during that time period.

Do you really believe that such vast numbers of people aren't having massive impacts on our national environment? We're told that about 11 million illegal immigrants are here right now. That's about the equivalent of greater New York City wandering around.

The recent housing bubbles -- plural, because I think the huge run-up in prices in some places in the late '70s and early '80s counts too -- were in no small part affected by immigration. No one is creating new land, after all. Immigrants may well stack themselves 10 to a house to save money. But in so doing, they displace the people who previously paid -- and could afford -- two to a house or apartment. Those folks, in turn, confront a tighter housing market and must allocate more of their income for a roof. That affects the people living just above them, in slightly bigger or nicer places. It's a ripple effect, a wave that goes all the way up to the $3 million MacMansions. And this isn't something that's very debatable: people who come here must live somewhere, and hence must have an impact. That, in my view, is part of the environmental impact.

To be alarmed about this is not NIMBYism. It's more like a simple case of the self-preservation instinct, just as worrying about one's job is part and parcel of self-preservation.

But the solution to all of this is, as several above have said, NOT to be building 700 mile fences, or rounding up people like cattle and dumping them over the border. It's not to treat decent, hard-working, energetic human beings like trash. To treat them as something utterly disposable.

Personally, the solution I would like to see would involve a true get-tough policy on employers who knowingly hire illegals. Tough fines, even jail time. Outs for those who were clearly misled by well-made fake IDs (then the immigrant, and whoever sold him or her the fake ID, get the tough treatment). Along with some of the other provisions mentioned by posters above. And, yes, clear and reasonable avenues to amnesty and eventual citizenship for those who've been here -- but, ideally, done in a way to not encourage yet another 16 million to flow in right behind them.

El Wacko once more proves that being dumped for a Mexican turns wingnuts into monomaniacs.

Crack down on employers, rationalise the process, provide earned legalisation, and actually fund the bureaucracy into the 21st century.

癌症
癌症
尖锐湿疣
中国康网
尖锐湿疣
排铅
成人用品
尖锐湿疣治疗

中国康网
健康导航
资讯中心
男性健康
女性健康
两性健康
大众健康
母婴健康
疾病大全
中医中药
医学知识
药学知识
药品大全

糖尿病
高血压
心脑血管
肿瘤
肺癌
胃癌
肝癌
食道癌
直肠癌
结肠癌
乳腺癌
宫颈癌
贲门癌

肺癌
胃癌
肝癌
肾癌
食道癌
子宫颈癌
乳腺癌
卵巢癌
直肠癌
结肠癌
皮肤癌
甲状腺癌
胰腺癌
前列腺癌
膀胱癌
骨癌
鼻咽癌
脑瘤

癌症
乳腺癌
肺癌
胃癌
食管癌
肿瘤
直肠癌
结肠癌
肝癌
宫颈癌
脑瘤
甲状腺肿瘤
胆囊癌