They gotta pass something. The status-quo is a disaster. It can always be revisited once Bush is gone.

For this to work -- or any immigration reforms program in the past 50 years -- the Immigration and Naturalization Service must be provided the clerical help it needs. Doesn't sound like much, but I'm sure there are those attending to this list who can detail the reasons, if they are not as apparent as I think they are. In the past, the back roomers in the Congress conveniently ignored the fact that for the INS to actually carry out the reforms they were instituting, it needed the people to do it.

So, what are the cost estimates for increasing the INS office staff?

The bill isn't even available to Senate staffers (Republican, I'm sure) yet and is supposed to be 1,000 pages long. This is Harriet Miers II and it will be interesting to see if the Republican Senators like Kyl, who ran against illegal immigration last year, will stick with it. Maybe they should remember that the Republican mayor of Hazelton, PA, who passed the housing ordinance that was so controversial, won both the Republican AND the Democratic primarties last week (The latter as a write-in !).

The bill isn't even available to Senate staffers (Republican, I'm sure) yet and is supposed to be 1,000 pages long. This is Harriet Miers II and it will be interesting to see if the Republican Senators like Kyl, who ran against illegal immigration last year, will stick with it. Maybe they should remember that the Republican mayor of Hazelton, PA, who passed the housing ordinance that was so controversial, won both the Republican AND the Democratic primarties last week (The latter as a write-in !).

Any immigration bill that doesn't bash Latinos is going to be a dud with the GOP base, but as the 2006 mid-terms showed, that isn't a winning electoral bloc anymore.

Gee, it lets in millions of more people to further lower the wages for unskilled and semi-skilled Americans, and lets in unlimited amounts of people with post-graduate degrees to allow corporations to pay less for skilled workers. Who's the winner: Corporate America. The loser: The middle class. Nothing new there.

Not enough detail in the article to really tell, but my guess is that it's the worst of the D and R ideas (isn't that called a compromise?). It's had to think of an issue where there's less rational thought, more grandstanding, or more hidden agendas than this one.

Kevin Drum: Guest worker programs are a disaster on a variety of levels, so that's a strike against it.

You got that right. Has there ever been a guest worker program anywhere in the world that has worked as advertised? Since when did the American tradition of immigration become obsolete, and superseded by guest workers? Lack of cheap labor hurting some US businesses? What's the matter, haven't you free traders heard of comparative advantage?

The stiffer employer sanctions are a good idea, but only if the bill includes mechanisms to guarantee they'll be enforced.

ROTFLMAO! This is 1986 redux. We all remember how well that "reform" worked. Oh, that's right, illegal immigration only went up 5-10x!

That looks iffy to me, though I probably need to educate myself more on the enforcement details.

Don't bother. What the bill says is irrelevant unless Congress allocates funds to enforce it and the executive branch actually puts some effort into enforcing it. Friendly suggestion: don't hold your breath.

This is why I'm in favor of amnesty, but only after it's been demonstrated for several years that we'll try to enforce our laws. I fell for this bullshit back in 1986.

it is likely to piss off the Republican base way more than it will the Democratic base. On the other hand, virtually every leading Republican candidate for president has denounced the bill

In other words, it'll be a boon for Republican presidential candidates. Way to go, Dems!

from the article: Republicans got a new “merit-based system of immigration,� intended to make the United States more competitive in a global economy.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Merit based systems are good if implemented right. They work for Canada and Australia. OTOH, the Republican (and to only a slightly lesser extent Democratic) idea of "merit" is "our big campaign contributors claim there's a desperate shortage" (objective evidence to be ignored). That's how the H-1B program has always worked. Even in 1998 the GAO concluded that there was no "shortage" of programmers, engineers, etc. warranting an increase in the hi-tech guest worker quota. Nowadays the rational is even weaker. Think Congress gives a shit? There only interest is in keeping the bribes (oops, I mean campaign contributions) flowing. Meanwhile, useful idiots in the media and general public buy these shortage claims.

But, but, but Kevin...

Dem im-gint folk dun tuk rr jaaaawbs!

I guess I'm supposed to have an opinion about the immigration reform bill that was hammered out yesterday, but I really don't.

Its absolutely horrible. The so-called "merit-based" immigration system it creates is simply turning our immigration system over into a weapon for capital to use against labor, officially. It abandons the principals of family—of bonds of community and attachment—that is the good part of the status quo system (though the execution needs improvement).

Its a bad bill, even though the legalization system (though structured moronically) is better than nothing, in that regard.

Kevin, the goal of politics isn't to piss off the other party. That's how Republicans operate, not us. You should be thinking about how this bill will affect people's lives. What is the point of having Dems in the majority if they don't enact bills that will help people live? Not having any opinion about this suggests you don't know and perhaps don't care about the people this bill will affect most. I find that pretty sad, given that you live in California.

At this point, Americans want no reform, since any reform is likely to be worse than what we have.

Something is SORTA better than nothing.

And I'm all for the point system (it's a breath of fresh air and transparency in Canada -- as I've looked into it myself and watched friends go through it). There is some concern about eliminating some of the family connections for immigration. Asian American groups have already come out against this part.

And for the 40,000 same-sex bi-national couples it doesn't do squat. Especially the thousands that have been forced into exile in Europe, Canada and South America in order stay with their partners. The only same sex bi-national couples that this bill benefits are those that are too poor to leave the U.S. and so have stayed together with one partner as an undocumented immigrant on borrowed time.

Unfortunately, many American gays and lesbians, who are incredibly well educated and often quite financially comfortable have been forced overseas -- tech workers, former business owners, publishers, just to name a few that I know about. And for them, they once again come up empty handed. Their only hope is the Uniting American Families Act that has been reintroduced recently.

I'm not sure it will go anywhere, though. Because to the Republican base only one thing is worth than Mexicans -- the Gays.

Why do they have to pass something now? If a bill passes now, the politicians will steer clear of any further immigration bills for a long time. There will be no "tidying up" or improvements. OTOH, in less than two years, we will have a Dem president and more Dems in the House and Senate. We will have more sanity and intelligence; less ignorance, malice, and cruelty. Any bill then will be vastly better.

For all the chest beating by the lathered up bigots yelling about illegal immigration, illegal immigrants are here to fulfill a market for labor. If there wasn't work they wouldn't be here.

A market is an irresistable force and will be fulfilled one way or the other.

The legislation will have no effect on the matter. The legislation, like just about all legislation, has been crafted for reasons related to the next election cycle rather than to provide a rational system to regulate immigration.

Why may one obtain a tourist visa on the airplane to visit Mexico, Cuba, or almost anywhere else, while folks from most other nations must undergo a personal interview to obtain a visa to visit the USA? Because the USA's might makes right foreign policy has made enemies out of most of the world's folks.

By the way, I read an article last week reporting that Spain has the fastest growing immigrant population in Europe, as well as its fastest growing economy.

immigration reform bill = rule of law? what rule of law?

laws no longer matter. Bush shows by example.

It's OK to let the Fortune 500 go to Mexico with your job looking for very cheap labor but it is not OK for a hard working, clean living Mexican to come to the USA for a better life. Can someone tell me how many cars are made in Mexico? How many companies produce products in the machiladoras ("grist mills")along the border? What is the value of the goods produced? What are the wages paid? Have those wages increased to any meaningful amount over the last 30 years?

The 11 million undocumented workers in the USA work twice as hard for half the pay. That's like having 44 million workers. Without them, the economy would collapse.

I heard one racist Republican say to another in Texas, "If we don't stop them, they will take over the state." Race-based fear drives the argument to the right.

Pity the poor immigrant when such hatred is unleased against him and his wife and children.

It's good to see that Drum is somewhat opposed to the current bill, but it's worth pointing out that that's only because it's not bad enough.

Apparently massively increasing LegalImmigration largely from one country, encouraging even more IllegalImmigration largely from one country, enriching the corrupt MexicanElite even more than they are now, depriving Mexico of the workers and reformers it needs, giving the MexicanGovernment even more PoliticalPower inside the U.S., reducing wages for low-wage Americans, and all the other downsides of the current bill aren't bad enough.

Kevin Drum wants it to be even worse.

However, I think things are actually going to get better, and John Edwards is going to play a part, even if he doesn't know it yet.

(warning: WM may have edited this message after I posted it.)

LegalImmigration...IllegalImmigration...MexicanElite...MexicanGovernment...PoliticalPower

Seriously, if you are going to come here blogwhoring for your one-note xenophobic blog, could you please learn English first?

While I have no doubt that this "bill" will be an unmitigated disaster if passed, I take great solace in the fact that Congress is controlled by Harry and Nancy, who can't even get bills that passed both Houses enacted into law. (How many of the Dems 100 hour agenda items have been passed? Zero) I can only pray that their incompetence will prevent this monstrosity from ever getting to Bush's desk.

I can also take solace in the fact that the GOP base is infuriated and livid over this. While GOP senators may be able to ignore the base, the GOP Reps cannot and will not risk their political lives on a bill that is being championed by Teddy Kennedy. Nancy has said that she will not bring any immigration reform bill to the floor of the House that has less than 70 votes from the GOP. A week or two's worth of exposure of the deficiencies contained within this bill will hopefully ensure that no GOP Representative will vote for this comprehensive piece of crap that has passed out of the bowels of the Senate.

I oppose this bill because it doesn't call for the building of an entire border fence first.

It's an amnesty, but that's OK with me. Sooner or later we will have to give amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants living here. It's the only practical solution.

And, of course the bill is absurdly complex. Maybe that's for political reasons, as Kevin surmises. Or, maybe it's because every law and regulation that comes out of Washington is absurdly complex. Washington could re-name itself Complexity-R-Us.

There's no doubt that the INS will screw up the administration of this or any other bill. I've dealt with INS. They are a dreadfully managed organization.

My bottom line is this: I would support the bill if it prevented this problem from recurring in the future, that is prevented elevin million more illegal immigrants. To me, that means a complete fence. As someone put it,

If your boat is taking water, which do you do first? Bail or plug the leak?

I posted this at Yglesias' site, too:

I have an acquaintance who's a refugee from one of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, so I've paid particular attention to the "path to citizenship" bit. It stinks. It really stinks. I can see imposing a fee/fine for dodging the CIS (formerly knows as INS). But the "Z" visa requirement that heads of households need to return to their country of origin for some kind of "security" song and dance is pure bureaucratic chickenshit. My guess is that this alone will keep many immigrants -- all those from further than Central America -- out in the cold.

The "guest worker" thing conjures up images of the plight of the Turks in Germany -- exactly the kind of dead-end situation that America, to her great credit, has managed to avoid.

I don't see why Dems need to sign off on such a shit bill, just to give the Boy King a transient feeling of accomplishment.

cmdicely:
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure where you get "xenophobic" from LonewackoDotCom's posting. I live in one of the poorest states in Mexico and see firsthand, every day, the impact that illegal immigration to the States has on local families, the Mexican culture and the Mexican political system.
I think most of Lone's points are perfectly valid (I think the jury's out on the impact of illegal immigration on wage levels, but quien sabe?).
By failing to stem the tide of people heading north, we're providing a huge safety valve for the Mexican government which reduces internal pressure for reform.
While tightening the border would surely have a negative short- to intermediate-term impact on individual workers, I honestly think that its longer-term effect, both here and in the States, would be positive.
It's the motivated, hard-working and, let's face it, most intrepid Mexicans who are seeking better lives in the States. If that option weren't available, they'd almost certanly channel their efforts into pushing for genuine reform here. And, lacking the billions of dollars Mexican immigrants send home from the States every year, it just might be that those efforts finally get the attention of the Mexican government.
P.S. How's my spelling?

Like Keith, above, and Atrios, I think it would probably be best to leave the situation alone until after the next election. The campaigns would have to address the issue and a legitimate debate would be helpful.

For all the chest beating by the lathered up bigots yelling about illegal immigration, illegal immigrants are here to fulfill a market for labor. If there wasn't work they wouldn't be here. ("Chris Brown")

Nonsense.

There's always a "market" by business for labor that will work for less. And there's always a market by business for labor that will work for little or no benefits. And there's always a market by business for labor that will work for less in dangerous and unhealthy environments. And there's always a market by business for labor that will work for less on a non-contractual basis. And there's always a market by business for labor that can be threatened and coerced on the job and that can be terminated on the slightest whim even after years of good performance.

This sort of "if there wasn't work they wouldn't be here" reasoning returns us flat back to the beginnings of industrialization at the outset of the Victorian Age and pretty much negates all progress labor has struggled for and won since that time.

Illegal immigration into the United States is disastrous specifically to established labor and generally to the cause of labor.

Whether or not this bill represents an answer, I don't know. I suspect it does not. I suspect that businesses who seek cheap labor at the expense of the established labor force will get their way as well as those who want to undermine all the hard won job benefits now held by established labor.

And when I posit "established labor", I mean both blue collar and white collar wage earners. So if you work in a white collar job in a cushy office setting, don't make the mistake of reasoning that illegal immigration doesn't affect you or your job and has to do only with the sweat jobs "out there." Illegal immigration into the United States encompasses more than just poor Mexicans; about 40 percent, so I am informed, consists of folks who have overstayed their visas -- college students, for example, and folks -- most of these don't pick lettuce but, in fact, may be occupying the cubicle next to yours (or soon will) -- and you don't know it, nor did the legal who didn't get the job because of it.

Business wants the illegal aliens for the cheap labor.

Of course, there's a great deal of hypocrisy in telling the Republican base the aliens are animals and then inviting them in to labor. It's also hypocritical to work them at below minimum-wage levels and claim to be the party of Traditional Family Values.

There's an immorality and an unpatriotic element to hiring aliens instead of Americans and the Republicans and businesses should be ashamed.

I think John Edwards is right, though I don't know the full extent of his reasoning. If you support the status quo the hypocrisy continues. If you deport them...well, who are we kidding, the businesses who use them won't help and it's nigh impossible. That leaves amnesty. Amnesty allows us to record their presence and know what we're dealing with. It would also allow us to force employers to pay any documented worker a decent percent of minimum wage. They wouldn't care for that and it would possibly help put some balance back in the political aspect of the debate. Once there's a greater cost to businesses they won't be so gung ho over the status quo hypocrisy.

I suspect the problem with aliens receiving social benefits will require some large changes in many different state government programs. If we're very serious we might also consider changing the law about citizenship automatically going to anyone born here, and instead limit it to those whose parents are already American.

It's a moral issue!

The one thing missing from all the hoppla is a sure-fire plan to "fix" Mexico so that crossing the Sonoran Desert in 110 degree heat or bouncing around in a panel van with 35 other people don't look like winning propositions.

For this to work -- or any immigration reforms program in the past 50 years -- the Immigration and Naturalization Service must be provided the clerical help it needs. Posted by: securityfirst

Agreed. Hiring another 6,000 border patrol agents and getting a butt load of new surveillance gear is only half of the proposition. The INS, like many government agencies with broad mandates, has been understaffed for decades.

...My bottom line is this....ex-lax at 4:34 PM

JeffII: The one thing missing from all the hoppla is a sure-fire plan to "fix" Mexico so that crossing the Sonoran Desert in 110 degree heat or bouncing around in a panel van with 35 other people don't look like winning propositions.

I suggest that any such plan would have to come mostly from the Mexican government.

Hey Keith and JackD!
Take off the rose-colored granny glasses and try looking at the REAL world for a change.
Even if the Dems do win, not a thing will change except for who will get to take credit for whatever clusterf**k congress comes up with next.

MarkH: If you support the status quo the hypocrisy continues. If you deport them...well, who are we kidding, the businesses who use them won't help and it's nigh impossible. That leaves amnesty. Amnesty allows us to record their presence and know what we're dealing with.

That was my reasoning when I supported the 1986 immigration "reform".

Problem: if you don't enforce immigration laws then there will be an endless stream of illegal aliens. The 1986 law gave amnesty to millions (?), but because immigration law wasn't enforced, we have many times more illegal aliens today than we did then.

It's not just a question of putting enforcement provisions in the law either (the 1986 law had them). An effort has to be made to actually enforce them. Once it has been demonstrated for a few years that we're finally serious about enforcing our laws, I'll favor an amnesty.

Once burnt, twice shy.

"The 11 million undocumented workers in the USA work twice as hard for half the pay."

Are fucking kidding me??!!

Most of the callers on today's Cspan Washington Journal program lamented the state of the republican party and the bill itself. In the past weeks callers referred to themselves as former republicans.
Back in 7/06, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez claimed Bush sent back 6 million people since he has been in office.
He made an observation that we have 12 million people in this country and they probably have 3 million children.
But he made an absurd point that businesses ask for documentation and are not interested in cheap labor. And said he hadn't seen that or heard of it from one business person.
He lost me at hello.

The one thing missing from all the hoppla is a sure-fire plan to "fix" Mexico so that crossing the Sonoran Desert in 110 degree heat or bouncing around in a panel van with 35 other people don't look like winning propositions.

I don't think that's the only thing missing. Fixing Mexico isn't something the US can unilaterally do through legislation, even if it was the US's job. OTOH, the legislation offered isn't even a sensible legislative response to the external circumstances.

This sort of "if there wasn't work they wouldn't be here" reasoning returns us flat back to the beginnings of industrialization at the outset of the Victorian Age and pretty much negates all progress labor has struggled for and won since that time.

No, it doesn't. It acknowledges reality, nothing more.

There are many different ways to apply it to policy, many of which do not undermine labor.

Failing to recognize the basic reality at the outset, however, guarantees that whatever policy you come up with will be a failure built on self-delusion.

Well, from a purely political point of view, it has ignited the wingers -- some even calling for Bush to be impeached! It is always fun to see those guys' heads explode. (And you got to figure if it has those idiots over at NRO completely worked up it can't be all bad.)

Also, it probably will finally kill McCain's campaign. I see McCain -- even with all his recent weasly behavior -- as the Dems strongest competition in the general election. Supporting Bush on this will insure McCain never makes it through the Republican primary.

Plus, the overheated, racist rants of the winger talking heads will probably insure that the Hispanic vote will belong primarily to the Dems for the next twenty years.

On substance, I'd give it a C-: it's worth passing — barely — but probably not worth mourning if it doesn't.

the most important "known unknown" is enforcement of the border. The only advantage to waiting is to see whether the current attempts to prevent illegal immigration across the border work out. There is a suspicion (see alex above) that once the law is passed, enforcement will disappear, as happened with Simpson-Mazzoli.

the disadvantage to waiting is that we could use the skilled applicants who want to come to the U.S. now. The number of native-born Americans who major in science, math, and engineering is declining, and we need the immigrants in order to keep our industry at world-leading standards. Foreign workers do not reduce American wages by coming here, but by existing and working. If they come here, they work for us; if they stay in China and India, they work for our competitors. It's better that we allow them to come here.

The major "known unknown" is future enforcement. It's hard to decide on the law now, given that as unknown.

The U.S. is not going to deport the illegals here, at least not more than 1% of them. Better that they gradually become citizens.

So, I say pass the law and keep active about guarding the border and enforcing the immigration laws in the future.

Gee, it lets in millions of more people to further lower the wages for unskilled and semi-skilled Americans, and lets in unlimited amounts of people with post-graduate degrees to allow corporations to pay less for skilled workers.

From what I've read, it doesn't let in "millions of more people" but rather is limited to 400,000 per year with a two year limit. Unless my math is wrong, that effectively caps the guest worker population at 800,000. Now, some will argue that some of these guest workers will overstay their permits, and my guess is some will. But I also suspect most will not, because the proposal allows them to reapply after a year out of country. Why risk losing the very valuable ability to work and live legally in the US in favor of the more risky life of someone who's subject to arrest and deportation at any given time? If anything, I think the biggest flaw of the proposal is that the guest worker proposal is too niggardly in its provisions, and will risk building up a "Turkish-German" style second class community. My hope is that the legislation that reaches the president's desk, or a subsequent reform, establishes a protocol for those guest workers who do well to apply for green cards. Also, the increase in the H-1 program is just that, and increase. The proposal doesn't make that number "unlimited" -- does it?

Problem: if you don't enforce immigration laws then there will be an endless stream of illegal aliens. The 1986 law gave amnesty to millions (?), but because immigration law wasn't enforced...

The problem with the 1986 legislation wasn't so much that nothing was done about enforcement. In fact in the decade and a half after the bill was signed by Reagan, real spending on enforcement increased severalfold, IIRC.

The problem is that illegal immigration is not an issue that is readily solved via law enforcement. In this regard it is no different from any other black market: it's fundamentally an economic phenomenon.

At least this time around, there includes a proposal -- albeit a tepid, overcompromised, and barely adequate one -- to address the underlying economics of illegal immigration via a guest worker program. It ain't perfect, but it's a start. In 1986 we didn't even get a start.

whatmatters,

Native born citizens of the USA will not plant trees in the forests of the NW. Immigrants are happy to have the work. Likewise agricultural and other types of work.

Jasper: If anything, I think the biggest flaw of the proposal is that the guest worker proposal is too niggardly in its provisions, and will risk building up a "Turkish-German" style second class community.

Any guest worker program risks that, which is one of the reasons I oppose all guest worker programs. No guest worker program has ever worked as advertised, and the whole concept runs counter to the American style immigration.

the increase in the H-1 program is just that, and increase. The proposal doesn't make that number "unlimited" -- does it?

Considering that H-1 is a guest worker program, and there was never any need for it (as the GAO concluded in 1998), any increase is a bad idea. The only good approach is to scrap the entire visa category and give everyone who's already here on an H-1 a green card.

The problem with the 1986 legislation wasn't so much that nothing was done about enforcement. In fact in the decade and a half after the bill was signed by Reagan, real spending on enforcement increased severalfold, IIRC.

And how many employers were fined, and how much were they fined? The effort was smoke and mirrors for the gullible.

The problem is that illegal immigration is not an issue that is readily solved via law enforcement. In this regard it is no different from any other black market: it's fundamentally an economic phenomenon.

There's also a black market in stolen goods, so that's fundamentally an economic phenomenon. Do you think we should stop using law enforcement for that? If so, please let me know where you park your car.

Chris Brown: Native born citizens of the USA will not plant trees in the forests of the NW.

Oh? How much you paying? For the right price, I'll get you all the native born citizens you want (although I've no idea what you have against naturalized citizens or LPRs).

"The only people that hate free markets more than communists ... are capitalists."

And no, calling on a Conservative Nanny State to increase the supply every time the cost goes up a nickel is not a free market.

"it is likely to piss off the Republican base way more than it will the Democratic base."

Base, maybe. But swing voters are going to be largely with Republicans on this.

I also am not convinced that Dems can count on Old Faithful--African Americans--on this.

Those of you who yapping about amnesty vs. deportation are creating a false dichotomy. Visibly high enforcement is already having results. Attrition is a perfectly reasonable goal.

If I had 5000 cash to spare, I would get in line and get one of these new biometric foolproof ID cards. I mean what a great deal. Who cares if I don't get citizenship for 13 years. I've got an unassailable ID. I'll be Marcus Biko from Botswana. Who's going to prove I'm not? I was clever enough to get over here, sorry I don't have any records of that, I destroyed them out of paranoia. Do I have any relatives in Botswana? No my family was killed. Try the embassy. Do I have a bank account? No. I just show up, wait in line and get certified as Marcus Biko. Who's going to check when there are 12 million others in line too?

"There's always a "market" by business for labor that will work for less. And there's always a market by business for labor that will work for little or no benefits. And there's always a market by business for labor that will work for less in dangerous and unhealthy environments. And there's always a market by business for labor that will work for less on a non-contractual basis. And there's always a market by business for labor that can be threatened and coerced on the job and that can be terminated on the slightest whim even after years of good performance."

Posted by: whatmatters on May 18, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Bingo. A global "Grapes of Wrath" that is.

The idiocy of the current approach can be seen in the pending passport requirements. I live in Michigan, fairly close to the border with Canada. I've been to Canada hundreds of times in my life, and judging by license plates, a whole lot of Canadians have returned the favor. We just drive across a bridge (or in Detroit/Windsor, can go through a tunnel under the river). Yes, there is Customs on both sides, but a driver's license has always been fine.
Now we're going to need passports. My daughter will need one to go to Stratford, Ontario, with her classmates to see plays there, a few hours away. It's about $100 for the passport.
Canada is not a hotbed of terrorism or illegal immigration. This is a ludicrous response to a dubious threat. Our family of five will have to spend about $600 (adult passports cost more than kids) just to drive across a bridge that I've driven across for 40+ years with no problem.
Idiots!

Jasper: The problem is that illegal immigration is not an issue that is readily solved via law enforcement. In this regard it is no different from any other black market: it's fundamentally an economic phenomenon.

So are killing for hire and trafficking in kidnapped women and in stolen auto parts. I don't think the solution is to quit enforcing the law.

I admire the people who come to the U.S. I am in the paradoxical position of wanting it to be hard to get in so that those who come here are people who really want to get here. I also believe that the laws we live by ought to be those written by our legislators (as specified in the Constitution), not the exceptions to the law decreed by actions of people who don't live here. There isn't sufficient enthusiasm for the law among our citizens that we'll force illegal immigrants to go back home; but it is possible in the future that we can cut the illegal immigration rate by 90% or so. This is an "art of the possible" sort of argument.

Paradoxically, democracies end up with laws that are opposed by large numbers of people, and which are difficult to enforce because of governmental respect for civil liberties. Dictatorships end up with laws that almost no one likes, but which are rigorously enforced.

The Simpson-Mazzoli law was so poorly enforce that we have 12 million illegal immigrants, about half from Mexico. I think that people who want current immigration laws rigorously enforced before enacting reform have a good case, at least if we want immigration policy decided by Americans already here. This law commands at best grudging acceptance, because almost every provisition in it has a large minority that dislikes it. No one seems to be really confident that it will be an improvement.

Any guesses as to its prospects for being passed? House Speakker Pelosi said that she wouldn't even bring it up for a vote unless 70 Republicans voted for it. Why?

A guest Worker program will create a permanent caste of slaves in Guest workers, and near a near-slave caste of those who have to compete with them.

This is a profoundly bad idea, and it will cause massive political and social instability. Anyone who supports this bill is too stupid and too disinterested to be trusted on any other issue. This will be both the death of Labor, as guest workers won't be permitted to unionize and the 500k number, which may drop to 200k before the bill is passed, will be raised repeatedly in the dead of night. Because of this, it will also kill the Democratic party as it loses what's left of it's labor allies, and what's left of the perception that they are the party of the working class.

Uncontrolled illegal immigration, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support indy media.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)

Legalizing 12 to 20 million new low wage, unskilled and uneducated workers to be dumped on the legal job market will drive wages down all over the place.

What an idiotic statement. The reality is that many of them are already in the "legal job market" illegally, via the use of false green cards or social security numbers. Of course, many of them work under the table for low wages, sometimes sub-minimum wages, but giving them legal status would enhance their ability to work in legitimate employment, earning at or above minimum wage. There are a lot of things not to like about this legislation, but the amnesty provision will almost certainly put upwards pressure on wages.

So are killing for hire and trafficking in kidnapped women and in stolen auto parts. I don't think the solution is to quit enforcing the law.

I don't think so either, because theft and murder are utterly different, morally, from sneaking into the country to feed your family, or indeed hiring someone to weed your garden.

Those of us who advocate comprehensive, market-based reform of immigration policy aren't arguing that we ought to quit enforcing the law. We're arguing that we ought to change it. Just as some of us argue we should change narcotics laws.

It is the lower income unskilled American workers and their families that are going to get more screwed…. Fat Angry Guy at 10:19 AM

Regarding the complaints from anti-ill.imms that we shouldn't ever give citizenship to those to enter illegally, and from pro-ill.imms that "we literally can't send them all back" etc: many of those positions are compatible. We can send illegals back for example only when they are arrested etc., but still not ever grant citizenship (why this idea that everyone getting into our country deserves citizenship?! It isn't like there are two consolidated packages, each which negates the provisions of the other.

It is ironic that this country would be ground zero for xenophobia and hatin' on immigrants, when, except for native Americans, we are all immigrants.

While I think this is a far from perfect bill, at least it provides a pathway to legalization, which today is a sad farce.

Fat White Guy: Kevin lives in Irvine, which is I guess about 40 miles south of L.A. A former large ranch which has been subdivided, I have the feeling it's a tightly controlled upper middle class paradise of a sort. I rarely go behind the Orange Curtain, but I have a feeling that Kevin Drum is isolated from places like, for instance, Santa Ana and certainly from similar cities further up the 5, such as MaywoodAndCudahy.

For an example of both Santa Ana and the huge AssimilationProblem we have, I urge everyone to watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7YrkpKNB7M

It shows SantaAnaSchoolkids spontaneously chanting the name of their country as a taunt. And, no, it's not "U.S." Note also all the supportive comments the video has received from those both here and in "their" country.

I strongly suspect that Kevin Drum - as well as all the other pundits who come down in favor of amnesty - have been able to physically isolate themselves from the negative impacts of that which they support.

Neil B.: what you're suggesting has been tried before, and usually results in revolts.

Sooner or later we will have to give amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants living here. It's the only practical solution.

Posted by: ex-liberal on May 18, 2007 at 4:34 PM

Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! We have a winner in the common sense sweepstakes! (Of course, common sense, and practicality, never work politically.)

Tighten the borders more securely -- not a wall or fence, just improve enforcement -- but you're not going to be able to deport millions, though that may be the xenophobes' wet dream. They are here, and aren't going away, so you might as well keep and assimilate them.

Kevin,

You dont seem to care much about this issue, yet I believe it's of crucial importance to the US. The situation with the H1B visas this year shows how the system is completely broken and needs to be fixed. Yet we only pay attention to the illegals... it puzzles me...

jasper: The problem is that illegal immigration is not an issue that is readily solved via law enforcement.

jasper: Those of us who advocate comprehensive, market-based reform of immigration policy aren't arguing that we ought to quit enforcing the law. We're arguing that we ought to change it.

jasper: At least this time around, there includes a proposal -- albeit a tepid, overcompromised, and barely adequate one -- to address the underlying economics of illegal immigration via a guest worker program. It ain't perfect, but it's a start. In 1986 we didn't even get a start.

What you call a "start" still requires strict enforcement of the law, because the size of the illegal immigrant problem, at 12 million, overwhelms the size of the guest worker program. You probably know that up till about 1966, California had a guest worker program. It did not actually end illegal immigration. If the newly proposed immigration law is not strongly enforced, illegal immigration over the next 20 years will approximate what it has been over the last 20 years.

I think that the guest worker part of the law is the part least likely to have a lasting, noticeable impact. And even it will require enforcement to be effective.

Kevin, you have UTTERLY missed the point.

Legal immigrants are people we want. That's why they're legal. Illegal foreigners are people we don't want. That's why they're illegal. If someone is in one category but belongs in the other, change the law. (Repeat this as necessary to understand any particular piece of the debate or legislation.)

How can you tell the difference? It's easy, actually.

In America (with exceptions), the Rule is that immigrants are INVITED. Who invites them? Americans.

Citizens invite their spouses, kids and parents without numerical limit. Legal immigrants invite their spouses and kids -- but WITHIN numerical limits each year. Likewise, both citizens and legal immigrants invite their adult children, and citizens can invite their siblings.

Finally, employers can sponsor their workers to become Americans.

This proposal would wreck ALL of that.

Citizens would no longer be able to invite their siblings, and parents of US citizens would no longer be considered "immediate relatives".

Proponents of this godawful deal claim it would reduce backlogs, but the MOST important backlog for legal immigration gets nothing: husbands, wives and little kids of LEGAL immigrants don't get a single extra visa.

There are 1.5 million in line, waiting a MINIMUM of five years. Each year, 90,000 more go to the back of the line. This bill proposes to take 87,000 a a year off the front of the line.

Do the math.

And what it does to employers is even more spectacular -- it takes control AWAY from businesses that hire foreigners and sponsor 'em to become Americans, and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats who will get to implement a system that is based on the idea that refrigerator mechanics with a community college degree is more valuable to America than a legal immigrant's wife and toddler.

For SHAME, Kevin. Next time, learn something about a bill before you form an opinion.

What you call a "start" still requires strict enforcement of the law, because the size of the illegal immigrant problem, at 12 million, overwhelms the size of the guest worker program.

MatthewRMarler: You're confusing or conflating two entirely different groups of people. The guest worker proposal is not designed to address the situation of the 12 million illegals currently living in the US. Current illegals are taken care of by the proposed "Z visa" (amnesty, in other words).

The guest worker proposal, rather, is primarily geared toward folks (presumably Mexicans and Central Americans) who otherwise might soon become part of the annual illegal influx sneaking across the Rio Grande. The guest worker proposal, in other words, renders legal that which, under current US law, is effectively prohibited: the immigration of Latin American laborers unlucky enough to possess American relatives.

Again, I think the guest worker proposal as outlined by the media is overly rigid, insufficiently generous, and places little or no emphasis on assimilation (guest workers, for instance, will not be eligible to apply for green cards). Still, it at least begins to chip away at the unworkable policy -- the defacto prohibtion of non-familial Latino immigration -- that fuels the growth in the country's illegal population.

FWIW, I think the guest worker program and the movement toward a merit-based points system is where the real action is on this bill. The amnesty part -- while something I favor for humanitarian reasons -- really won't have that much of an impact either way. I mean, those 12-20 million people are already residents of the United States. They're already in the workforce. They're already paying taxes. They're already parenting American kids who go to American schools. Amnesty will make their lives easier, but the country won't change very much as a result. But it would be a major change to get control of our borders and sharply reduce the annual inflow of illegal aliens, and to accomplish this I'm utterly convinced that some legal means of permiting Latinos to immigrate will be required.

With respect to the issue of enforcement, all I can say is if we can substantially reduce the number of Mexicans and other Latin Americans trying to sneak into the US -- by no longer forcing them to do so because of the existence of a legal method -- we're only going to reduce the size of the task facing our border control forces. An army whose enemy has been greatly reduced in size is a stronger, more effective army.

Citizens would no longer be able to invite their siblings, and parents of US citizens would no longer be considered "immediate relatives".

Of course citizens would still be able to "invite" their siblings. Family reunification would be still be possible under the law. If Brother X in Taipei wants to joing Brother Y in Los Angeles, he'll still be able to do so. He'll just have to be able to make it on his own merits. What's more American than a system based on merit?

As for parrents no longer being considered "immediate relatives" for purposes of immigration law, I've got no problem with that. There's this new invention called the jumbojet. If parents and children want to see each other, they're perfectly free to take a vacation. The bottom line is "chain migration" is a deeply unpopular phenomenon that undermines the natural generosity of Americans toward foreigners. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the introduction of some sort of new, robust tourist visa for purposes of longish family visits. But the idea that winning the DNA lottery should give you an edge over someone with an advanced degree in biology is just plain foolish.

WE HAVE 300 MILLION PEOPLE WHY DO WE NEED 30 MILLION MORE.WE MAKE THESE PEOPLE LEGAL AND BIG BUSSINESS WILL REPLACE THEM WITH 10 MILLION MORE ILLEGALS

The only immigration reform the country supports is a big, tall, concrete and steel border fence. This issue is Iraq all over again. The corporate media elites, Congress and the administration forcing something down the throats of the public it does not want. Its being sold as the "responsible thing" to do. There is no grass root movement in the country saying legalize all the illegal aliens. The public doesn't support smoothing their path to citizenship. Congress can buy itself years of good will by just saying no!'

Jasper asks: "What's more American than a system based on ..." government bureaucrats determining that the economy needs buggy whip cordwainers, Betamax engineers, and more Ph.Ds in the sadly unrepresented field of Intelligent Design physics?

Gee, I dunno.

How about the quaint notion that husbands, wives and little kids represent the value we as a nation place on strong marriages and united families?

How about the quaint notion that husbands, wives and little kids represent the value we as a nation place on strong marriages and united families?

I have no objection to this. I just don't think the principle should be extended to adult siblings, cousins, uncles etc. Reuniting children and parents and husbands and wives? Sure. But there quite rightly should be balance. A move to a more Aussie or Canadian style system would allow we the people -- acting through our lawmakers -- to actively pursue skills and talents that will boost the economy's competitiveness, and benefit all Americans. I am passionate enough about the benefits to the country of a generous immigration policy to want to see widespread, continuing support for immigration. Taking a would-be immigrant's education level or skill set into consideration is understandably popular with Americans. Excessive reliance on the DNA lottery isn't.

Jasper: MatthewRMarler: You're confusing or conflating two entirely different groups of people.

Not so. I was asserting that what you want, like the current system, like the proposed new system, depends on vigorous law enforcement in order to succeed in achieving its stated goals. It just plain is not true that the multiple goals aimed for in immigration policy can be solved without strong law enforcement.

Jasper: The problem is that illegal immigration is not an issue that is readily solved via law enforcement. In this regard it is no different from any other black market: it's fundamentally an economic phenomenon.

Jassper: Those of us who advocate comprehensive, market-based reform of immigration policy aren't arguing that we ought to quit enforcing the law. We're arguing that we ought to change it. Just as some of us argue we should change narcotics laws.

If the legalization of alcohol is any precedent, then changing narcotics laws will exacerbate law enforcement problems, not alleviate them. At minimum, we could expect a huge increase in automotive fatalities. Strong law enforcement is an intrinsic part of any solution that might actually work.

The Mexican government forces on its people economic policies that retard economic development. You can't change that any time soon because those policies are popular. So as long as the United States wants to control its own immigration policy, it needs strong enforcement of its own laws. That isn't going to change.

FWIW, I think the guest worker program and the movement toward a merit-based points system is where the real action is on this bill. The amnesty part -- while something I favor for humanitarian reasons -- really won't have that much of an impact either way. I mean, those 12-20 million people are already residents of the United States. They're already in the workforce. They're already paying taxes. They're already parenting American kids who go to American schools. Amnesty will make their lives easier, but the country won't change very much as a result. But it would be a major change to get control of our borders and sharply reduce the annual inflow of illegal aliens, and to accomplish this I'm utterly convinced that some legal means of permiting Latinos to immigrate will be required.

I agree with much of that, but I see no reason to grant preferential treatment to Latinos. There already is a way for them to immigrate legally, and it is the same way as for Chinese to immigrate legally. What I prefer is to make it harder for them to immigrate illegally. Getting in here illegally is what they call the "reconquista".

Lord, arguing with stupid people.

Jasper: "I have no objection to this."

Then why do you object to it? Or, if you want precision, why DON'T you speak up for it?

"we the people -- acting through our lawmakers ..."

What was wrong with "we, the people" acting... ourselves?

The truth is, supporters of this crap want to pose to themselves AS IF they support immigration... just not, you know, IMMIGRANTS.

Jasper's idea is that American citizens who sponsor their siblings and parents are WRONG -- because, you see, they're not HIM.

But, hey, the Bush administration? They'd make better decisions when they give green cards to refrigerator mechanics with degrees from community colleges.... AHEAD of the husbands, wives and toddlers of LEGAL immigrants.

That's too real for the likes of Jasper. He wants to talk about how US citizens who sponsor their siblings are placing a burden on guys like him... golly, how unAmerican (not to mention ignorant) can you be?

Make no mistake: it is utter bullshit to imagine that government bureaucrats make better decisions about what skill sets the American economy needs than EMPLOYERS.

The Reptilians and Demoniacals have been totally corrupt on illegal entry in the past, so there is no reason to hope that they will enforce law in the future no matter what law is passed. Just a show for a gullible public.

Our immigration sytem isn't broken; Bush is corrupt. He is our first president that is totally lacking in patriotism.