NationStates Jolt Archive

I absolutely agree with this column. The only thing I find wrong with it is that it leaves out a massive increase in border enforcement and serious, business threatening penalties for hiring illegal immigrants and the deportation of immigrant criminals.

CORPORATE America has made an expanded guest worker program the cornerstone of its preferred brand of immigration reform, and no wonder: It will assure a steady flow of cheap labor from essentially indentured workers too afraid of being deported to protest substandard wages, chiseled benefits and unsafe working conditions.

Such a system will create a disenfranchised underclass of workers. That is not only morally indefensible, it is economically nonsensical. We've had plenty of bad experiences with such shortsighted answers to a complicated problem.

The notorious bracero program all but enslaved immigrant agricultural and railroad workers in the years after World War II. Today we have H-2A and H-2B visa programs to remind us that "temporary" immigration employment models rest on a faulty foundation.

The H-2 programs bring in agricultural and other seasonal workers to pick crops, do construction and work in the seafood industry, among other jobs. Workers typically borrow large amounts of money to pay travel expenses, fees and sometimes bribes to recruiters. That means that before they even begin to work, they are indebted. They leave their families at home, and they are essentially "bound" to employers who can send them home on a whim and who do not have to prove a need to hire them in the first place.

According to a new study published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, it is not unusual for a Guatemalan worker to pay more than $2,500 in fees to obtain a seasonal guest worker position, about a year's worth of income in Guatemala. And Thai workers have been known to pay as much as $10,000 for the chance to harvest crops in the orchards of the Pacific Northwest. Interest rates on the loans are sometimes as high as 20% a month. Homes and vehicles are required collateral. Handcuffed by their debt, the "guests" are forced to remain and work for employers even when their pay and working conditions are second-rate, hazardous or abusive. Hungry children inevitably checkmate protest.

Technically, these programs include some legal protections, but in reality, those protections exist mostly on paper. Government enforcement is almost nonexistent. Private attorneys refuse to take cases. And guest workers, especially the poorest, the least educated and those with the least English, end up with no choice but to put their heads down and toil, innocently undermining employment standards for all U.S. workers in the process.

This doesn't mean that there is no solution to the immigration crisis or no good way to deal with workers and families who will want to come — and who we will need to come — to the United States to work.

In 1997, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform validated our belief that a "properly regulated system of permanent admissions serves the national interest" and warned that another temporary-worker program would be a "grievous mistake." This means that everyone who is admitted to work must immediately be on a track toward permanent residency or citizenship.

Yes, employers who can prove that they tried and failed to find U.S. workers should be able to hire foreign workers. But no, they shouldn't be able to bring them in under abusive conditions that have a negative effect on the wages and working conditions of other workers.

Yes, we should have caps set to limit the number of employment-based visas issued each year. But no, they should not be determined, as the H-2 quotas are now, by political compromise or industry lobbying. The number of employment-based visas should be set each year by the Department of Labor based on macro-economic indicators that establish the needs of particular industries.

Employers should not be allowed to recruit abroad, a practice that invites bribes, exorbitant fees and potential abuse. Instead, employers should be required to hire from applications filed by workers in their home countries through a computerized job bank.

Foreign workers should enjoy the same rights and protections as U.S. workers, including freedom to form unions and bargain for a better life. Labor laws must protect all workers, regardless of immigration status. If we leave undocumented workers without any real way to enforce labor laws, as our laws do now, we are feeding employers' hunger for more and more exploitable workers, relegating them to second-class status. That hurts all workers.

Scholars have long recognized that the genius of U.S. immigration policy throughout our history has been the opportunity afforded to immigrants for full membership in society. That is the solid foundation on which a morally and economically sound policy can be built, and it is the foundation we are working together to build.

By John J. Sweeney and Pablo Alvarado, JOHN J. SWEENEY is president of the AFL-CIO. PABLO ALVARADO is executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.
April 10, 2007

I'm sorry, but clear-headed thinking is not allowed here. :p

I'm sorry, but clear-headed thinking is not allowed here. :p

Apparently not. This is NS General.

I know. It's all about ideological rigidity over practicality - the fatal flaw of the Bush administration and just as dangerous from the left.

I know. It's all about ideological rigidity over practicality - the fatal flaw of the Bush administration and just as dangerous from the left.

Here on NS General, if you're not ideologically rigid, they will accuse you of not really believing in what you posted before, and therefore, will find some bad name to call you.

The only "immigration crisis" is that nationalistic xenophobes are increasingly opposed to it and want fascist Final Solutions to ease their insecurity.

Let them come. There is one dwarf yet in Moria who still draws breath.

The only "immigration crisis" is that nationalistic xenophobes are increasingly opposed to it and want fascist Final Solutions to ease their insecurity.

What about the immigration crisis on the other end, where immigrants are constantly treated as second-class workers or second-class citizens and blamed for all sorts of systemic local or national problems?

What do you mean, the other end? That's the exact same end I was talking about.

Touche.

What about the immigration crisis on the other end, where immigrants are constantly treated as second-class workers or second-class citizens and blamed for all sorts of systemic local or national problems?

What do you mean, the other end? That's the exact same end I was talking about.

The only "immigration crisis" is that nationalistic xenophobes are increasingly opposed to it and want fascist Final Solutions to ease their insecurity.

And there's your ideological rigidity. Every year there must be more schools, teachers, cops, jail cells, sewers, roads, water delivery lines, electrical lines, electricity used, buses, cars on the road, more traffic, more gang crime - something even Rock DelGadillo has finally acknowledged - more subsidized health care... none of this is a problem it's just all in the heads of people who live in areas effected by illegal immigration. It's not enough that reasonable people are willing to increase the amount of legal immigration to fill jobs that need to be filled and to offer a path to citizenship for those that get hired to do them. It's not enough that reasonable people are willing to lower the barriers for immigrants that want to come here to work. It's not enough that reasonable people want people who do immigrate legally to enjoy the same rights and privileges as American Citizens do with reagrds to labor law and collective barganing. No, because reasonable people also want to crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants and to start to take border security seriously we are all a bunch of racist xenophobes.

Reforming immigration is alright so long as you realize it'll probably make food double in price.

Reforming immigration is alright so long as you realize it'll probably make food double in price.

That's bullshit. Labor only equals about 5% of the cost of food.

And there's your ideological rigidity.

Come off it. I know you like to think you've found some sort of magical, unbiased, non-ideological column and that somehow, your position is also non-ideological. But I don't buy it. You're every bit as "rigid" as anyone else on this issue.

Every year there must be more schools, teachers, cops, jail cells, sewers, roads, water delivery lines, electrical lines, electricity used, buses, cars on the road, more traffic, more gang crime - something even Rock DelGadillo has finally acknowledged - more subsidized health care... none of this is a problem it's just all in the heads of people who live in areas effected by illegal immigration.

Every year there must be more schools, teachers, cops, jail cells, sewers, roads, water delivery lines, electrical lines, electricity used, buses, cars on the road, more traffic, more gang crime, more subsidized health care REGARDLESS of illegal immigration. This is because the population grows. And if you're saying all that is a "problem" amounting to a "crisis," then you obviously must be against legal immigration too since legal immigration contributes to all of those things as well. Oh, and childbirth as well. What's your plan for the childbirth crisis? Perhaps we could deport newborns.

It's not enough that reasonable people are willing to increase the amount of legal immigration to fill jobs that need to be filled and to offer a path to citizenship for those that get hired to do them. It's not enough that reasonable people are willing to lower the barriers for immigrants that want to come here to work. It's not enough that reasonable people want people who do immigrate legally to enjoy the same rights and privileges as American Citizens do with reagrds to labor law and collective barganing.

There aren't enough reasonable people. Everyone is too busy whining about the "illegals" and running around with their head wobbling while screaming "CRISIS! CRISIS!"

No, because reasonable people also want to crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants and to start to take border security seriously we are all a bunch of racist xenophobes.

No, because unreasonable people want that, and more. And like you their problem is with immigrants overall, not just "illegals." After all, immigrants make it so that every year there must be more schools, teachers, cops, jail cells, sewers, roads, water delivery lines, electrical lines, electricity used, buses, cars on the road, more traffic, more gang crime, more subsidized health care....

Can't have that!

The result of the thinking in this article is outsourcing.

Generally, I am in agreement with the article.

But I could probably find a point or two that I disagree with.

It's not enough that reasonable people are willing to increase the amount of legal immigration to fill jobs that need to be filled and to offer a path to citizenship for those that get hired to do them. It's not enough that reasonable people are willing to lower the barriers for immigrants that want to come here to work. It's not enough that reasonable people want people who do immigrate legally to enjoy the same rights and privileges as American Citizens do with regards to labor law and collective barganing.

From this, one could deduce that reasonable people are a minority in the US.

So why, in a democracy, have the reasonable people not yet done all the things you've just mentioned? Are they really a minority?

That's bullshit. Labor only equals about 5% of the cost of food.
Ok, then costs will rise 5%. You talk like 5% isn't a lot.

Oh, and childbirth as well. What's your plan for the childbirth crisis? Perhaps we could deport newborns.

can't deport them - they're citizens. but we could do infanticide for everyone!

It's not enough that reasonable people are willing to increase the amount of legal immigration to fill jobs that need to be filled

no, it isn't, because that is stupid. it amounts to quite probably lowering the level of immigration allowed. as we are constantly reminded, they took our jerbs!

when you can explain to me why i should be legally barred from moving to, for example, wisconsin, on the basis of the employment statistics there, then we can talk.

Come off it. I know you like to think you've found some sort of magical, unbiased, non-ideological column and that somehow, your position is also non-ideological. But I don't buy it. You're every bit as "rigid" as anyone else on this issue.I'm rigid in the sense that I want a practical solution. I don't let ideology blind me to the cost of unfettered immigration or convince me that immigration is dangerous because the people who are coming are different.



Every year there must be more schools, teachers, cops, jail cells, sewers, roads, water delivery lines, electrical lines, electricity used, buses, cars on the road, more traffic, more gang crime, more subsidized health care REGARDLESS of illegal immigration. This is because the population grows. And if you're saying all that is a "problem" amounting to a "crisis," then you obviously must be against legal immigration too since legal immigration contributes to all of those things as well.No, citizens and legal immigrants pay taxes that pay for more roads, cops, schools, etc.. and have greater access to health insurance and make more money so they can pay for more of their own stuff.

Oh, and childbirth as well. What's your plan for the childbirth crisis? Perhaps we could deport newborns.I think like every other country in the world being born here should not automatically make you a citizen. I also think that even if we do not change that, that being born here should not allow you to import all your relatives to automatically become citizens.



There aren't enough reasonable people. Everyone is too busy whining about the "illegals" and running around with their head wobbling while screaming "CRISIS! CRISIS!"When you live where I live you do see a crisis. As far as reasonable peopleare concerned, the guy who wrote this article is a day Laborer organizer. I doubt he's much of a xenophobe. The problem is that reasonable people say reasonable things but your ideological ear muffs translate them to "CRISIS CRISIS kill al the immigrants!



No, because unreasonable people want that, and more. And like you their problem is with immigrants overall, not just "illegals."I have no problem with legal immigration. At all. Your saying I do does not make it so and no where have I said anything to the contrary. It's like I said. You see reasonable responses to what reasonable people see as a rising problem and you translate everything through a rigid ideological POV and turn it into the racist rantings of David Duke. For you, anyone who has any position other than "let the immigrants swarm in as fast as they can and give 'em all free health care and education" is a racist xenophobe who has something against all immigrants rather than someone who believes that the country needs immigrants - particularily in the face of almost full domestic employment - but who believes that security and infrastrucure requirements require a controlled system of immigration rather than a free-for-all at our borders and ports.


After all, immigrants make it so that every year there must be more schools, teachers, cops, jail cells, sewers, roads, water delivery lines, electrical lines, electricity used, buses, cars on the road, more traffic, more gang crime, more subsidized health care....

Can't have that!

Again, if they're not here seeking political asylum or for some other humanitarian reason then they are legally employed, probably have some sort of employer subsidized health insurance and pay regular state and federal taxes. Legal immigranst are also not crossing to teh tune of millions every year and they are probably not members of Mara Salvatrucha or some Mexican drug cartel.

no, it isn't, because that is stupid. it amounts to quite probably lowering the level of immigration allowed. as we are constantly reminded, they took our jerbs!Bullshit. We have almost full domestic employment. Our unemployment rate hovers around 4% and most unemployed people have specific industries that they will work for. An unemployed writer is not likely to be picking fruit this Spring. That's a big part of the reason illegal immigrants can find work at all.

when you can explain to me why i should be legally barred from moving to, for example, wisconsin, on the basis of the employment statistics there, then we can talk.

Because you're an American citizen. I can, however, explain to you why you cannot move to Mexico, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Russia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, China or japan and legally work. Hell, in Mexico you can't even own a house if you're not a citizen.

From this, one could deduce that reasonable people are a minority in the US.

So why, in a democracy, have the reasonable people not yet done all the things you've just mentioned? Are they really a minority?

Because, unfortunately, the ideologues from either side yell louder than the middle. It's the same everywhere.

Because, unfortunately, the ideologues from either side yell louder than the middle. It's the same everywhere.

Let us assume, for a moment, that there is a majority of reasonable people, whatever that definition may be.

Let us also assume that we live in a democracy.

Since voting is the reasonable thing to do, then the reasonable majority should be able to silently (since voting isn't yelling and screaming in the media) vote for what they want.

Now, my theories are that reasonable people might not be in the majority. They may be too lazy to vote (this is unreasonable, since voting is what gives you self-determination in a democratic society). Finally, and here's what I think, they don't care.

Ask your regular reasonable guy on the street what he thinks an immigrant currently has to go through in order to live in any country. Fact is, it's not as easy as most people think, because most people don't even think about - they were born there after all! I honestly do not believe that most people know the slightest of the many difficulties and red tape that exist in immigrating to almost anywhere.

And that's not even beginning to talk about all the private stuff, such as actually moving personal belongings, getting a home, etc...

Let us assume, for a moment, that there is a majority of reasonable people, whatever that definition may be.

Let us also assume that we live in a democracy.

Since voting is the reasonable thing to do, then the reasonable majority should be able to silently (since voting isn't yelling and screaming in the media) vote for what they want.

Now, my theories are that reasonable people might not be in the majority. They may be too lazy to vote (this is unreasonable, since voting is what gives you self-determination in a democratic society). Finally, and here's what I think, they don't care.

Ask your regular reasonable guy on the street what he thinks an immigrant currently has to go through in order to live in any country. Fact is, it's not as easy as most people think, because most people don't even think about - they were born there after all! I honestly do not believe that most people know the slightest of the many difficulties and red tape that exist in immigrating to almost anywhere.

And that's not even beginning to talk about all the private stuff, such as actually moving personal belongings, getting a home, etc...
I'll buy that. What I'm saying, though, is that if you ask the average person in the streets they neither hate immigrants and want all immigration to stop or think that we should just throw the borders wide open. You are right, however, that our country has become complacent. People don't vote as often as they should - particularily when it comes to local elections. Where I live, for example, the city council has decided not to allow any more alcohol licenses to be granted. This isn't because the majority of people don't want to be able to go to a restaurant and enjoy a beer or glass of wine with dinner or that they think other people shouldn't be able to. It's because a few vocal church communities and homeowners' groups have decided that they don't like certain bars being around. Well, guess who votes for city council members? Church groups and active homeowners' association members.

I'll buy that. What I'm saying, though, is that if you ask the average person in the streets they neither hate immigrants and want all immigration to stop or think that we should just throw the borders wide open. You are right, however, that our country has become complacent. People don't vote as often as they should - particularily when it comes to local elections. Where I live, for example, the city council has decided not to allow any more alcohol licenses to be granted. This isn't because the majority of people don't want to be able to go to a restaurant and enjoy a beer or glass of wine with dinner or that they think other people shouldn't be able to. It's because a few vocal church communities and homeowners' groups have decided that they don't like certain bars being around. Well, guess who votes for city council members? Church groups and active homeowners' association members.

Since I don't have any listed location, I'll excuse you saying our country ;)

However, I do agree that complacency is a general problem.

I wonder if, and why, people are opposed to mandatory voting. I know that for my local waterworks, for example, each household must be present at every meeting or they will be fined. But that of course, is completely voluntary (as in, you choose to get water from them in the first place), whereas many people don't choose to be citizens of whichever nation they are in. Immigrants do, I know, to avoid threadhijacking, I'll use this as a time to say that many immigrants are probably more attuned to their country of residence than many non-immigrants. Or at least, they cared enough to bother to go there for one reason or another).

Since I am rambling, maybe, and this is a far-fetched theory, maybe people are afraid of immigrants because unlike themselves (both reasonable and unreasonable people), the reasonable immigrants would actually bother trying to make changes come true. For the unreasonable, it's changes they don't want and for the reasonable, it's changes they can't be bothered about and don't want to feel shame about.

But as I said, I am rambling and my use of reasonable and unreasonable is beginning to sound very ideological :p

Since I don't have any listed location, I'll excuse you saying our country ;)

However, I do agree that complacency is a general problem.

I wonder if, and why, people are opposed to mandatory voting. I know that for my local waterworks, for example, each household must be present at every meeting or they will be fined. But that of course, is completely voluntary (as in, you choose to get water from them in the first place), whereas many people don't choose to be citizens of whichever nation they are in. Immigrants do, I know, to avoid threadhijacking, I'll use this as a time to say that many immigrants are probably more attuned to their country of residence than many non-immigrants. Or at least, they cared enough to bother to go there for one reason or another).

Since I am rambling, maybe, and this is a far-fetched theory, maybe people are afraid of immigrants because unlike themselves (both reasonable and unreasonable people), the reasonable immigrants would actually bother trying to make changes come true. For the unreasonable, it's changes they don't want and for the reasonable, it's changes they can't be bothered about and don't want to feel shame about.

But as I said, I am rambling and my use of reasonable and unreasonable is beginning to sound very ideological :p

It's not about that. Illegal immigrants can't vote and legal immigrants tend not to, polls show. The fact is that here in Los Angels our jails, schools and hospitals are overcrowded, our courts are overbooked and our infrastructure is overtaxed. These are real problems caused, in large part, by illegal immigration. When you live here these problems are readily apparent.

And then there's the politics. There was actually a bill that was passed by our state legislature that would have allowed illegal immigrants to go to our community colleges for free while citizens and legal immigrants - including immigrants on student visas - continued to pay for our educations. Thankfully it was vetoed by the governor, but the fact that it could pass the legislature is just mind blowing. My parents paid taxes to support state eduction their entire working lives. I have paid taxes to support state sponsored education my entire working life. Somehow, our state legislature arrived at the conclusion that illegal immigrants who have never paid any should get the services my family have paid for for free while I continue to pay. And why should a foreign student who has done well enough to enter an American college and pays exhoribtant our of state tuition have to pay that cost while a person who is in this country illegally gets it for free?

The only "immigration crisis" is that nationalistic xenophobes are increasingly opposed to it and want fascist Final Solutions to ease their insecurity.

QFT

I know. It's all about ideological rigidity over practicality - the fatal flaw of the Bush administration and just as dangerous from the left.
Since you used both groups in one sentence, let me follow up. I hate to agree with Sweeney, even just a little, but the guest worker program is bad. The fact that both Bush and the left prefer it to any serious reform underlines just how bad.

We need to get off our collective butts and write Congress for real reform, not just something that looks like action, but only preserves the status quo.

I absolutely agree with this column. The only thing I find wrong with it is that it leaves out a massive increase in border enforcement and serious, business threatening penalties for hiring illegal immigrants and the deportation of immigrant criminals.
I agree completely.

Also, welcome back, Dan...where the hell have you been?

I agree completely.

Also, welcome back, Dan...where the hell have you been?

Pilot season. I get really busy between mid-Feb and mid-April. then I sit on my ass and do nothing until August. :)

Since you used both groups in one sentence, let me follow up. I hate to agree with Sweeney, even just a little, but the guest worker program is bad. The fact that both Bush and the left prefer it to any serious reform underlines just how bad.

We need to get off our collective butts and write Congress for real reform, not just something that looks like action, but only preserves the status quo.

The Guest Worker program just sounds all humanitarian on the surface, but, as they say, "The road to Hell..."

Pilot season. I get really busy between mid-Feb and mid-April. then I sit on my ass and do nothing until August. :)

Ah...well, nice to see you're back, in any case. I missed your constant warnings of Peak Oil.

Seriously...where else am I going to get my fix of Doomy Gloom? ;)

Bullshit. We have almost full domestic employment. Our unemployment rate hovers around 4% and most unemployed people have specific industries that they will work for. An unemployed writer is not likely to be picking fruit this Spring. That's a big part of the reason illegal immigrants can find work at all.

maybe, though that can equally be used to mean that there ain't no more work needed. or are we now going with job creation for its own sake? and if so, how does that allow for any restriction on immigration at all? more people (on top of solid infrastructure and the like) will always equal more work to be done.

Because you're an American citizen. I can, however, explain to you why you cannot move to Mexico, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Russia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, China or japan and legally work. Hell, in Mexico you can't even own a house if you're not a citizen.

is/ought

why should my ability to to become a citizen of michigan be legally completely unrelated to me doing anything other than just showing up and living there, while a person from seirra leone gets no such legal option? what possible moral principle justifies this double standard?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ez3GmDgknk

An interesting watch ...

The Guest Worker program just sounds all humanitarian on the surface

really? who thinks that? it's always sounded to me like merely permanently enshrining the injustice of the present system, and it hasn't been widely held or seriously pushed within the immigrant rights movement to my knowledge. in fact, it was specifically denounced by a whole range of organizations in the movement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ez3GmDgknk

An interesting watch ...

"...lower immigration to something like a traditional level"

um, does this guy realize that we have proportionally fewer foreign-born people in the country than we ever used to outside of the couple of decades in the middle of the last century? shit, we'd have to nearly double it to get up to traditional levels.

Where are your facts to back that up?

Where are your facts to back that up?

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab01.html


edit: i just found even more recent numbers - we're now at the bottom end of 'traditional immigration levels'

"...lower immigration to something like a traditional level"

um, does this guy realize that we have proportionally fewer foreign-born people in the country than we ever used to outside of the couple of decades in the middle of the last century? shit, we'd have to nearly double it to get up to traditional levels.

By traditional, he's probably referring to European traditions :p

That guy is also quite wrong - a fifty million increase in population in a population of two hundred million is not a 100% increase. It's a 25% increase. Thus, infrastructure needs are not, as he claims, doubled.

Second problem: at five minutes he claims the rise is one million immigrants per year. The rise is only half a million.

That guy is also quite wrong - a fifty million increase in population in a population of two hundred million is not a 100% increase. It's a 25% increase. Thus, infrastructure needs are not, as he claims, doubled.

math is hard


what i want to know is when did everybody jump on board the zero population growth wagon?

math is hard


what i want to know is when did everybody jump on board the zero population growth wagon?

Verizon couldn't figure out math :p

Oh yeah, and he forgets to mention the fact that the immigration only actually grew by ten million, not twenty million.

I dunno when everybody did, but to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if a massive amount of people die in the future. The overgrowth is putting a serious strain on living conditions and eventually, we'll just not have the natural resources to support ourselves (barring space colonization, which would be awesome).

Edit - I just noticed. His graph is incorrect before 1980 and just after 1970 - it doesn't include the ten million existing immigrants at that time.

really? who thinks that? it's always sounded to me like merely permanently enshrining the injustice of the present system, and it hasn't been widely held or seriously pushed within the immigrant rights movement to my knowledge. in fact, it was specifically denounced by a whole range of organizations in the movement.

With good reason. The fact is that a guest worker program is touted by both political parties, though, and many of their supporters.

Well, the reasons businesses can put themselves in such a position of power is because the government puts up barriers against immigration.

If that Thai person wanted to work in the US and there were no immigration restrictions, they would basically pay for the flight and a tent. Then they could start working and use that together with whatever is left over from their savings to build a life.

They'd be indistinguishable from workers who happened to have been born somewhere else, so they couldn't really be treated any worse.

With good reason. The fact is that a guest worker program is touted by both political parties, though, and many of their supporters.

I don't see where the left (as you've mentioned casually a few times) comes into this though.

What you have is the problem of having two extremely similar political parties.

I don't see where the left (as you've mentioned casually a few times) comes into this though.

What you have is the problem of having two extremely similar political parties.

I specifically referred to rigid leftist ideology in the context of advocating open border, unfeterred immigration. As I have stated, my experience is that it is not practical. On the right you have the rigid ideologues, nativists who refuse to acknowledge that immigration is necessary and a social good. Practical thinking whether from the right or left should take into account the need for immigration and the moral imperative of allowing people into this country who are seeking a better life while acknowledging that the free-for-all that exists at the border is both a security risk and also risks damaging the very way of life they seek to achieve because it can overwhelm the infrastructure and services provided provided here. I live in the city that is most impacted by illegal immigration. A recent survey has concluded that Los Angeles has the smallest and most rapidly disappearing middle class of any city in the US. What we're creating here is a vast, impoverished work force. We're importing poverty at a rate too fast for our social services, our schools and our political structures to alleviate.

not to mention the crime it brings...

City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo and L.A. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said they are partnering more closely with federal immigration officials and attorneys to identify the gang members for deportation, adding that illegal immigrants appear to make up a significant portion of the gang population.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-gangs5apr05,1,1478972.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

There was actually a bill that was passed by our state legislature that would have allowed illegal immigrants to go to our community colleges for free while citizens and legal immigrants - including immigrants on student visas - continued to pay for our educations. Thankfully it was vetoed by the governor, but the fact that it could pass the legislature is just mind blowing. My parents paid taxes to support state eduction their entire working lives. I have paid taxes to support state sponsored education my entire working life. Somehow, our state legislature arrived at the conclusion that illegal immigrants who have never paid any should get the services my family have paid for for free while I continue to pay. And why should a foreign student who has done well enough to enter an American college and pays exhoribtant our of state tuition have to pay that cost while a person who is in this country illegally gets it for free?
If that bill had passed thru, you would see record immigration to Mexico. :D


Prospective students would simply migrate to mexico and jump the fence from there.


Yeah, what you said is shocking. I paid bucketloads of money to get an education that somebody could get for free cuz they broke the law..that's not an incentive to follow the law...

Ok, then costs will rise 5%. You talk like 5% isn't a lot.

It's not. 5 cents to the dollar more! Oh my god... if you buy a pound of oranges, you are going to pay 1.58 instead of 1.50! Oh noes, the entire system will fail! Why God, why?! I could have use that extra eight cents to buy 1/20th of a pound of oranges! By the Gods, that's less than 1/10 of an orange! What will do? Riots in the streets, murders, rapes! Nations will crumble, it will be WWIII! Jesus will rise again from the bloody entrails of the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus will go on a shooting spree, it will be a battle of the Ages! For the love of all that is Holy, won't somebody think of the Children? Why won't anyone think of the Children?

*collapses and weeps*

Seriously, though, not all food items are affected by illegal immigration.

I specifically referred to rigid leftist ideology in the context of advocating open border, unfeterred immigration. As I have stated, my experience is that it is not practical.

explain to me the problems and impracticalities caused by the open border between washington and idaho

not to mention the crime it brings...

actually, immigrants (both with and without documentation) are disproportionately less likely to commit crimes of other sorts.

http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_022107.pdf

explain to me the problems and impracticalities caused by the open border between washington and idaho There aren't any that I'm aware of. I am aware, however, of all kinds of problems with an open borders and ports bewteen the US and other nations.



actually, immigrants (both with and without documentation) are disproportionately less likely to commit crimes of other sorts.

http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_022107.pdfAnd yet here in LA they make up a disproportionate segment of the jail population and as our District Attorney said a significant proportion of the gang problem here.

I'm rigid in the sense that I want a practical solution. I don't let ideology blind me to the cost of unfettered immigration or convince me that immigration is dangerous because the people who are coming are different.


And so what ideology do you think I am blinded by? I'm interested to know just what form of ad hominem your argument (which you made in the OP, and then subsequently to any disagreement) will take.

Frankly, "practicality" can be an ideology as well.

An ideology is just a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture.

No, citizens and legal immigrants pay taxes that pay for more roads, cops, schools, etc.. and have greater access to health insurance and make more money so they can pay for more of their own stuff.

And illegal immigration is bad because illegal immigrants don't pay taxes? They do, though, just not as much.

And naturalization would be the practical way of turning them into taxpayers, rather than the usual "BUT THEY ARE CRIMINALLLLLS" shouting we hear so much from certain sectors.

I think like every other country in the world being born here should not automatically make you a citizen. I also think that even if we do not change that, that being born here should not allow you to import all your relatives to automatically become citizens.

Why not? Shouldn't one be as able to "import" relatives as oneself? Why is citizenship such a God's Gift that only the few, the select few, the proud, the marines can achieve it?


When you live where I live you do see a crisis. As far as reasonable peopleare concerned, the guy who wrote this article is a day Laborer organizer. I doubt he's much of a xenophobe. The problem is that reasonable people say reasonable things but your ideological ear muffs translate them to "CRISIS CRISIS kill al the immigrants!

But you just SAID it was a "crisis." Your anecdote is one I've heard a lot from xenophobes. "Where I live, them illegals come, they kill our cattle, they sit on their asses, they expect welfare checks, they rape our wimminz and takes our jobz." So when people talk about illegal immigration and go on to describe it as a CRISIS it's hard for me to consider that reasonable. It's not about MY ideology, it's about the ideology of people who happen to agree with your ideological stance. Now I'm not saying you're a xenophobe, I'm just saying that it doesn't sound any more or less ideological than a typical xenophobic anti-illegals position.

I have no problem with legal immigration. At all. Your saying I do does not make it so and no where have I said anything to the contrary.

Your complaints about gang members, increased cost to taxpayers etc., seemed to indicate you do, because those things stem from any type of immigration.

It's like I said. You see reasonable responses to what reasonable people see as a rising problem and you translate everything through a rigid ideological POV and turn it into the racist rantings of David Duke. For you, anyone who has any position other than "let the immigrants swarm in as fast as they can and give 'em all free health care and education" is a racist xenophobe who has something against all immigrants rather than someone who believes that the country needs immigrants - particularily in the face of almost full domestic employment - but who believes that security and infrastrucure requirements require a controlled system of immigration rather than a free-for-all at our borders and ports.

Or maybe you - as in your OP - touted your viewpoint as being non-ideological (bwaha) and suggested that anyone who disagrees is blinded by ideology, and with that bias in mind, you take anything I say to mean I'm thus blinded and ideological.

It's you who's creating a situation where no one can disagree with you without being slammed as "ideological" and "blinded."

As for a free-for-all at the borders, you would have to be joking if you think our system is like that. It has too MANY barriers and that is what is causing illegal immigration. To you, it seems like there can never be enough control and barriers to immigration - we need a fence, a wall, barbed wire, tanks, more soldiers, the National Guard, the Patriot Riders to protect us against the "flood" and the "crisis." That strikes me as authoritative and fascist, but that's just my uniquely ideological viewpoint and you of course have absolutely no ideology which could possibly influence your thinking. ;)

Legal immigranst are also not crossing to teh tune of millions every year

Because we make that impossible. Hence, illegal immigration.

and they are probably not members of Mara Salvatrucha or some Mexican drug cartel.

And illegal immigrants are probably drug smugglers, you say? I thought they were unemployed wretches looking for free health care and free education so they can import their relatives. Perhaps both?

There aren't any that I'm aware of. I am aware, however, of all kinds of problems with an open borders and ports bewteen the US and other nations.

only because those borders are treated so differently and unjustly

And yet here in LA they make up a disproportionate segment of the jail population and as our District Attorney said a significant proportion of the gang problem here.

firstly, sounds like a sampling error, if anything. my study > than your anecdote.

secondly, are they actually disproportionate to their population levels, or are there just a lot of them around in the first place leading to large numbers?

only because those borders are treated so differently and unjustly



firstly, sounds like a sampling error, if anything. my study > than your anecdote.

secondly, are they actually disproportionate to their population levels, or are there just a lot of them around in the first place leading to large numbers?
Not to mention that their mere existence over our way makes them criminals. Throw out those who are in jail solely because they are illegal immigrants(Before they are deported, of course), and that might change the numbers a bit.

The only "immigration crisis" is that nationalistic xenophobes are increasingly opposed to it and want fascist Final Solutions to ease their insecurity.
Hahahahahahaha...

oh wait, that wasn't a joke was it?! :|

And illegal immigration is bad because illegal immigrants don't pay taxes? They do, though, just not as much.

And naturalization would be the practical way of turning them into taxpayers, rather than the usual "BUT THEY ARE CRIMINALLLLLS" shouting we hear so much from certain sectors.

yeah, honestly. though the best is when they then demand that we make immigration violations felonies and build more prison and actually give them free healthcare and housing and education in our ever expanding money-sucking black hole of a 'justice' system.

Not to mention that their mere existence over our way makes them criminals. Throw out those who are in jail solely because they are illegal immigrants(Before they are deported, of course), and that might change the numbers a bit.

and i suspect that not having paperwork leads you to be disproportionately unlikely to get bail or community service hours, either

yeah, honestly. though the best is when they then demand that we make immigration violations felonies and build more prison and actually give them free healthcare and housing and education in our ever expanding money-sucking black hole of a 'justice' system.

Heh yes, there's one thing I think we can all agree on: we just plain don't have enough people in prison in the US....

explain to me the problems and impracticalities caused by the open border between washington and idaho
You know the fact that you seriously can't even comprehend the implications of that comparison, or the utter disparity in it. Definitely doesn't lead one to the conclusion that you are anything but another blind ideologue, with little if any practical knowledge of this topic, and even less in the way of real world practical sense.

Open borders, let's do it yay! Because it really should all work out in the end... no really!

:rolleyes:


But you just SAID it was a "crisis." Your anecdote is one I've heard a lot from xenophobes. "Where I live, them illegals come, they kill our cattle, they sit on their asses, they expect welfare checks, they rape our wimminz and takes our jobz." So when people talk about illegal immigration and go on to describe it as a CRISIS it's hard for me to consider that reasonable. It's not about MY ideology, it's about the ideology of people who happen to agree with your ideological stance. Now I'm not saying you're a xenophobe, I'm just saying that it doesn't sound any more or less ideological than a typical xenophobic anti-illegals position.
I'm sorry, I know it seems like a waste to quote this whole big thing, just for one little comment.

anti-illegal =/= anti-immigration
anti-illegal =/= xenophobe
anti-illegal can and does very much = pro-immigration and pro-worker


This is something that bugs me so much about the ideologues of the neo-left when it comes to this issue. (well not just this issue. ;) ) You have to either completely agree with their views on the issue, or you're automatically a xenophobe or a racist. Usually both though. You happen to unfortunately believe in enforcing the immigration law. Then you're a xenophobe or a racist. You haven't bought into the whole global federalism/citizenship and open borders ideology. Then you're a xenophobe, a racist and an evil nationalist extremist as well.

You haven't bought into the whole global federalism/citizenship and open borders ideology. Then you're a xenophobe, a racist and an evil nationalist extremist as well.
What is there to buy?

Nations are arbitrary lines on the map. The only thing that keeps them together is government force...don't tell me some dude from Detroit has more in common with some guy from Mississippi than some guy from Windsor.

Fact of the matter is that the nationstate and with it the idea that people from different nations are distinct from each other by virtue of their passports came up in the 19th century and didn't exist previously in that form.

So it's really you who "bought" into something rather new, while "we" realise that governments are interchangable, which is what people knew before nationalism became politically expedient to a privileged few.

You know the fact that you seriously can't even comprehend the implications of that comparison

oh, i understand the implications alright. that's why i chose the example.

or the utter disparity in it.

let me guess, its that other borders denote dirty foreigners, whereas that border is some arbitrary line of not much real importance. do i win?

Open borders, let's do it yay! Because it really should all work out in the end... no really!

:rolleyes:

not only should, but does. all of the evidence is on my side. all of it.

Not to mention that their mere existence over our way makes them criminals. Throw out those who are in jail solely because they are illegal immigrants(Before they are deported, of course), and that might change the numbers a bit.

There are no illegal immigrants in LA County jails simply because they are illegal. Special Order 40 prohibits law enforcment offficers from inquiring suspects about their immigration status even if they are suspected of a crime. In fact, it even prohibits law enforcemnet officers from arresting illegal immigrant suspects who have previously commited crimes if the police officer happens to know they are illegal and have previously ben deported. Let me make that clearer. If a police officer arrests a suspect in a crime and that suspect turns out to be an illegal immigrant and is later found guilty, even of a felony, and is deported and that police officer sees that same suspect back on teh streets of LA a year later he is prohibited from detaining that suspect purely on the basis of their immigration status. Long and short, there are no illegal immigrants in LA county jails that have not either been convicted of a crime or are being detained as a suspect in a crime that has nothing to do with their immigration status. Further, it also prevents law enforcement officials from turning over illegal immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In order to be turned over to immigration officials for deportation you must first be convicted of a felony.

I cant't find an information only, non-biased source to explain Special Order 40 so here's two different views from both sides of the debate. I'll edit out the opinion parts of these pieces but you can visit the links.

Special Order 40 is a police mandate that originated in 1979 by former Los Angeles Police Chief Gates and the L.A. City Council to prevent police from inquiring about the immigration status of arrestees.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/so40.shtml

Special Order 40, enacted in 1979, bars police from enforcing federal immigration laws. The Police Commission and top LAPD officials strongly re-affirmed the Order four years ago, and then again last year. The Police Commission's own Independent Review Panel noted how critical the Order is to ensure public safety.

http://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/2001/100022/

Every year there must be more schools, teachers, cops, jail cells, sewers, roads, water delivery lines, electrical lines, electricity used, buses, cars on the road, more traffic, more gang crime, more subsidized health care REGARDLESS of illegal immigration. This is because the population grows. And if you're saying all that is a "problem" amounting to a "crisis," then you obviously must be against legal immigration too since legal immigration contributes to all of those things as well. Oh, and childbirth as well. What's your plan for the childbirth crisis? Perhaps we could deport newborns.


With this kind of logic its no wonder why our students preform so poorly in math. You make an argument were 1 would be equal to 100... Simply because every year the need for social services increase, we should accept droves of more people into the country which only increase that burnden on tax payers ?

Yes the population grows, and yes the state legall allows something near 1 million legal immigrants annually, but these are numbers which the tax percentiles are meant to support, and numbers communities are able to sustain. But how can you expect localities to on top of those NORMAL population growth rates then accept hundreds or thousands more people Illegally entering and using their services (schools, hospitals...etc.). If you want to make the argument these burdens are negliable.... I would challenge you then to go and look at the border communities who are actually being effected by these illegals.. those communities whose educiation systems and healthcare systems are either severely taxed or nearly bankrupt because they are supporting more then they were meant to.

Its their children who recieve a lower quality education because of swelling class room sizes, and who receive lower healthcare services because of insufficent hospital space and staff. When you have a town whose normal population suddenly doubles because of the arrival of illegal immigrants, immigrants who are not paying education or healthcare taxes but who are using those services... that DOES make a difference.

If addressing these issues makes someone a xenophobe ... then to be responsible would demand xenophobia. Its a numbers game, and you just can't save everyone in the world..

*snip*
We can quote spam each other to death. I'm not even sure how far apart we actually are on the issue. I'll just try to clearly state my position. I believe we need strong enforcment of our border integrity. I believe that leaving our borders undefended might invite terrorist and absolutely does invite drug smugglers, gang members and other criminals to cross into our country undetected. I believe that the defense of our borders requires that we employ more border patrol agents and in some cases use physical barriers but over all just requires that our country make a concerted effort to keep people we don't want here out.

I also believe that we need immigration to further economic growth. In the face of near full domestic employment and a stagnant population in order to fill the jobs that get created by a growing economy you have to have immigration. The fact that illegal immigrants come to this country and do find work means that there is work to be had. If the jobs weren't here for them they would not be coming.

Also, bringing people to your country with different ways of life adds to the fabric of the melting pot that is American culture and is part of what makes our culture unique.

But what cannot be ignored is that in arease like Los Angeles the rapid influx of an impoverished underclass is having a readily visible impact on our infrastructure and our public services. Our emergency rooms are closing due to insolvency as they are flooded with illegal immigrants who use them for primary care. Our public schools have gone from some of the best schools in the country to some of the absolute worst. The gang problem is growing and has resulted in new racial tensions as traditionally black neighborhoods are being overrun with illegal immigrants. To put it simply, I believe that the onrush of poverty from illegal immigration is simply so fast and so great that our infrastructure is straining - and failing - to meet the challenge of integrating all these new people into our economy and culture.

I believe that the answer to these problems is to increase the allotment for immigration to that which is dictated by the job market. I believe we need to make immigrating to our country free for the immigrant and cheap for a perspective employer. I believe that our embassies should double as employment/immigration offices in other countries and that private companies, licensed by ICE, should be allowed to screen potential immigrants for health and criminal background and should then be able to place immigrants with any employer willing to hire them. Employers who do seek immigrant labor should provide the same health benefits as they are required to provide to American citizens to their new, immigrant employees. Once an immigrant is employed and has moved to the United States they should be given the opportunity to become American citizens with all the rights that we enjoy. I agree with the authors of the original piece I posted when they write:

Yes, employers who can prove that they tried and failed to find U.S. workers should be able to hire foreign workers. But no, they shouldn't be able to bring them in under abusive conditions that have a negative effect on the wages and working conditions of other workers.

Yes, we should have caps set to limit the number of employment-based visas issued each year. But no, they should not be determined, as the H-2 quotas are now, by political compromise or industry lobbying. The number of employment-based visas should be set each year by the Department of Labor based on macro-economic indicators that establish the needs of particular industries.

Employers should not be allowed to recruit abroad, a practice that invites bribes, exorbitant fees and potential abuse. Instead, employers should be required to hire from applications filed by workers in their home countries through a computerized job bank.

Foreign workers should enjoy the same rights and protections as U.S. workers, including freedom to form unions and bargain for a better life. Labor laws must protect all workers, regardless of immigration status. If we leave undocumented workers without any real way to enforce labor laws, as our laws do now, we are feeding employers' hunger for more and more exploitable workers, relegating them to second-class status. That hurts all workers.


The current mess at the border is bad for both the immigrant and our country. It needs to be solved with a comprehensive solution that recognizes that immigration is a need for the US but also that wide open, uncontrolled immigration is a security risk and is dangerous to our standard of living.