NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone keeping up with the cloture vote? Failed miserably once already today, I've called both my feckless Senators and made sure they know I'm against the bill.

Supposedly Dirty Harry will pull it if the cloture vote fails once more. Couldn't happen to a better bill!

Typically, one explains what the hell the topic of the thread is in the OP.

EDIT: Oh, that amnesty bill. No opinion.

No idea what the amnesty thing is about.

No idea what the amnesty thing is about.

Seconded.

S1438 is the immigration reform bill that offers illegal immigrants amnesty and possible citizenship if they meet certain conditions, IIRC. Many conservatives are pissed about it, especially since Bush is backing it against his own party members. If I can also recall parliamentary procedure correctly, a successful cloture vote will end debate on the bill and force the Senate to vote on it.

Taking 'illegal' away from the word 'immigrants'?

Good.

S1438 is the immigration reform bill that offers illegal immigrants amnesty and possible citizenship if they meet certain conditions, IIRC. Many conservatives are pissed about it...

You'd think they'd want the "illegals" (there are no illegal people, dammit!) to become "legal", but it's never been about their status, really...

You'd think they'd want the "illegals" (there are no illegal people, dammit!) to become "legal", but it's never been about their status, really...

What!? Say it isn't so!

What!? Say it isn't so!

I hate to break it to you... but the moon ain't made out of cheese!

S1438 is the immigration reform bill that offers illegal immigrants amnesty and possible citizenship if they meet certain conditions, IIRC. Many conservatives are pissed about it, especially since Bush is backing it against his own party members. If I can also recall parliamentary procedure correctly, a successful cloture vote will end debate on the bill and force the Senate to vote on it.
I think this is a test vote, not the actual vote to do so (I could be wrong though).

As much as I have issues with the bill, it is also the only game in town that comes somewhat close to addressing the issue that might actually pass.

Sadly, the wing nuts on both sides seem bound and determined to sink it.

I hate to break it to you... but the moon ain't made out of cheese!
Of course not, it's made out of honey. ;) *Ok, I really should be smacked for that bad pun*

Of course not, it's made out of honey. ;) *Ok, I really should be smacked for that bad pun*

Explain the "pun" to the foreigner.

Explain the "pun" to the foreigner.
Honeymoon.

Honeymoon.

Oh. Well, don't I feel absent-minded.

You'd think they'd want the "illegals" (there are no illegal people, dammit!) to become "legal", but it's never been about their status, really...
Tell me Fass, how does the Swedish government deal with people that sneak across the border and seek employment for discount wages?

As a contrast, how does one immigrate permanently to Sweden?

I think this is a test vote, not the actual vote to do so (I could be wrong though).

As much as I have issues with the bill, it is also the only game in town that comes somewhat close to addressing the issue that might actually pass.

Sadly, the wing nuts on both sides seem bound and determined to sink it.
Sunk it is. This is a real victory for the conservatives in Congress, as well as the nation.

Sunk it is. This is a real victory for the conservatives in Congress, as well as the nation.
So ignoring the problem while hoping for something that can never happen is a GOOD thing?

Tell me Fass, how does the Swedish government deal with people that sneak across the border and seek employment for discount wages?
Why do you care?

That's the big question I always have: why is it any of your business? You wouldn't care who the guy sleeps with, why do you care who he works for or what his wages are?

So ignoring the problem while hoping for something that can never happen is a GOOD thing?

Nope, but not having a bad solution imposed without decent debate is a bad thing. This bill has (had?) so many problems that it could only have been crafted by a committee.

Let's do one thing at a time. Instead of auto-certification that the borders are secure, let's pass a bill that does only that. It will take a few years to figure out whether or not that works, then we pass the next phase.

Haven't you ever used the phrase "baby steps" to describe how to tackle a big problem?

Nope, but not having a bad solution imposed without decent debate is a bad thing. This bill has (had?) so many problems that it could only have been crafted by a committee.

Let's do one thing at a time. Instead of auto-certification that the borders are secure, let's pass a bill that does only that. It will take a few years to figure out whether or not that works, then we pass the next phase.

Haven't you ever used the phrase "baby steps" to describe how to tackle a big problem?
There's no way to actually secure something that big that someone can't figure out a way around (Not to mention that most illegals make it in legally and just overstay their visa) and securing the border does NOTHING about the need for workers and waiting a number of years won't help that either.

Baby steps are nice, but this has been boiling over for years and we don't have years more to wait in the hopes that your party will get a super majority and magically be able to accomplish the impossible.

Why do you care?

That's the big question I always have: why is it any of your business? You wouldn't care who the guy sleeps with, why do you care who he works for or what his wages are?

Well, the last bit is that he can undervalue your work. If someone, or a group, is low balling labor then it undervalues the labor all together and in turn effects your wages or job availability.

This has been a bit of a corner for me with immigration. I don't have any problem with people coming in or doing work that 'other people won't do,' but that does have a tacit level of acceptance of exploitation. Because of their situation they undervalue their own labor. Essentially I'm becoming okay with exploiting their labor, and that's not sitting well with me. I don't mind them being here, I don't mind them working, but the system the way it is allows them to be exploited and that's no good.

I hate to break it to you... but the moon ain't made out of cheese!

*prepares to dismantle his rocket ship* You bastard, ruining a boys dreams. :(

Why do you care?

That's the big question I always have: why is it any of your business? You wouldn't care who the guy sleeps with, why do you care who he works for or what his wages are?
I don't particularly care what wages a employer and legal employee work out, but I do care when the worker is working outside the law. When the worker is paid, either on a cash basis, where payroll taxes aren't paid, or with forged documents that are illegal, I am being harmed.

Legal workers that have to compete with illegal workers are harmed even more directly because the illegal workers can and do undercut their wages. They make it difficult for inexperienced, but legal workers to get the low-paying jobs that typically allow entry into the job market.

But you know what really makes it my business? The word illegal. We live in a country that has embraced the rule of law. When laws that have existed since the Constitution are ignored to allow a small economic advantage to a group that can profit by hiring illegal workers, then it becomes my business as a responsible citizen.

Well, the last bit is that he can undervalue your work. If someone, or a group, is low balling labor then it undervalues the labor all together and in turn effects your wages or job availability.

This has been a bit of a corner for me with immigration. I don't have any problem with people coming in or doing work that 'other people won't do,' but that does have a tacit level of acceptance of exploitation. Because of their situation they undervalue their own labor. Essentially I'm becoming okay with exploiting their labor, and that's not sitting well with me. I don't mind them being here, I don't mind them working, but the system the way it is allows them to be exploited and that's no good.

Let's look at that. Are there really jobs that we need illegal immigrants for because our citizenry just won't do them? Don't citizens wash dishes in Ohio and New Hampshire restaurants? Don't we have citizens that provide maid service in motels from Oregon to Iowa? We have plenty of citizens that lay brick and frame houses all over the country. Just exactly what are these jobs that no one but illegal immigrants will do? And assuming there are some, why will the formerly illegal immigrants keep at it, once they are made legal?

Tell me Fass, how does the Swedish government deal with people that sneak across the border and seek employment for discount wages?

As a contrast, how does one immigrate permanently to Sweden?
Unless you're part of the EU, you need one of these-
What is required to be granted a visa?

If you wish to visit Sweden and the other Schengen countries you will need a passport valid for at least three months after the final date stated in the visa.

You must also have money for your keep and for the journey home. The Swedish authorities have estimated that a person needs €40 (approximately SEK 370) for each day spent in Sweden. This amount could in certain instances be lower, such as in the case of a young child, if the cost of food and accommodation is paid in advance or if the applicant intends to stay with relatives or friends. You can prove that you have sufficient money for your keep by, for example, producing an account statement from your bank or a document showing that the person inviting you to Sweden promises to cover all expenses during your visit.

It is also necessary to have individual medical travel insurance which covers any costs that could arise in conjunction with

* emergency medical assistance
* emergency hospital care
* transport to your home country for medical reasons.

The insurance should cover costs of at least €30,000 and be valid in all the Schengen countries.

You will be granted a visa if the authority that makes the decision – a Swedish mission abroad (embassy or consulate) or the Swedish Migration Board – considers that you will leave the Schengen area after your visit. If it is considered that your true intention is to reside in the Schengen area your application will be rejected. The same applies if you are registered in the computer system SIS (Schengen Information System), where the member countries can register persons who are not permitted to enter the Schengen area. These rules apply in all countries that have ratified the Schengen Agreement.
Then,
Different ways of achieving a Swedish citizenship

You can become a Swedish citizen through:

* application (naturalisation)
or
* notification (children, young adults aged 18-20 and Nordic citizens).

You can also become a Swedish citizen automatically through

* birth
* adoption
or
* legitimisation (marriage of parents)
Then you have to meet age requirements (over 18, unless by notification), duration of stay requirements (5 years for most, 2 years for Nordic countries), clean criminal record (there are scales for this, where staying longer can overcome things), and proof of identity.

Actually seems like a fairly easy country to immigrate to.
http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.html

Unless you're part of the EU, you need one of these-

Then,

Then you have to meet age requirements (over 18, unless by notification), duration of stay requirements (5 years for most, 2 years for Nordic countries), clean criminal record (there are scales for this, where staying longer can overcome things), and proof of identity.

Actually seems like a fairly easy country to immigrate to.
http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.html
My point is that all sovereign nations have laws to control their borders. I assume they enforce them. Why should we be any different?

Well, the last bit is that he can undervalue your work. If someone, or a group, is low balling labor then it undervalues the labor all together and in turn effects your wages or job availability.
Well price is given by supply and demand, so I wouldn't call it undervaluing, rather just decreasing the price.

Though it could end up the same, if you actually were in that particular labour market.

Essentially I'm becoming okay with exploiting their labor, and that's not sitting well with me.
Well, they're choosing to be exploited, aren't they? Say the guy is from Mexico, he's got the choice between some crappy job there that doesn't pay enough to feed his family, or some crappy job in the US that does. It's basically his call, so I would think it's between him and his employer.

The real pressure can only come up if the employer ends up threatening the guy with reporting him to the authorities or other unpleasantries. And besides the (silly) law that punishes people who employ illegal immigrants, the way to remove that threat is by removing the "illegal" tag from their status.

I suppose it would be idealistic of me to call for completely open borders, but how about a rule that state-sponsored healthcare, education and so on are only available to citizens and people with visas, but there is no threat of punishment or deportation either. Basically the "illegals" would be working, but not be putting much pressure on the state's various programs. And if the guy wants to make it more permanent or take advantage of taxpayer-funded programs, he can just ask for a visa (which should be a lot easier to get) and become a fully documented immigrant. It would involve turning non-documented people away from emergency rooms and public schools though, which could be bad PR (maybe some "pay fee first, get service then" thing could be worked out). If the immigrant in question is just the father or son sending money back to his family, that shouldn't be a huge issue. And if he brings his family, he should have a visa.

But as far as I can see, everyone benefits. Except the nativists, of course, but I really can't be bothered thinking about them.

Let's look at that. Are there really jobs that we need illegal immigrants for because our citizenry just won't do them? Don't citizens wash dishes in Ohio and New Hampshire restaurants? Don't we have citizens that provide maid service in motels from Oregon to Iowa? We have plenty of citizens that lay brick and frame houses all over the country. Just exactly what are these jobs that no one but illegal immigrants will do? And assuming there are some, why will the formerly illegal immigrants keep at it, once they are made legal?
Read the rest of my post, dude.

Read the rest of my post, dude.
I did. Even before this. I'm still curious. Are there really jobs that U.S. citizens just won't do?

I can buy that there may be a labor shortage. After all, we're still around 4.5% unemployment, even after absorbing 12+ million illegals.

Let's look at that. Are there really jobs that we need illegal immigrants for because our citizenry just won't do them? Don't citizens wash dishes in Ohio and New Hampshire restaurants? Don't we have citizens that provide maid service in motels from Oregon to Iowa? We have plenty of citizens that lay brick and frame houses all over the country. Just exactly what are these jobs that no one but illegal immigrants will do? And assuming there are some, why will the formerly illegal immigrants keep at it, once they are made legal?
Farmers in California, Florida, and the plain states are reporting that due to the construction boom and the current raids, there has been a sharp fall off of migrant workers willing to pick the crops that are feeding us. This is causing farmers to leave the crops out to rot, losing billions of dollars for the industry as a whole.
http://www.tulareadvanceregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070607/NEWS01/706070316/1002

Poltry plants now also report that after the raids, they DID get Americans applying for the job at minium wage, but they leave after about a week or two once they see how hard the job is. Turn over has shot up to very silly levels.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/05/29/0529edmyths.html

My point is that all sovereign nations have laws to control their borders. I assume they enforce them. Why should we be any different?
Your point was a question? In the future you might want to make your points statements.

Well price is given by supply and demand, so I wouldn't call it undervaluing, rather just decreasing the price.

Though it could end up the same, if you actually were in that particular labour market.


Well, they're choosing to be exploited, aren't they? Say the guy is from Mexico, he's got the choice between some crappy job there that doesn't pay enough to feed his family, or some crappy job in the US that does. It's basically his call, so I would think it's between him and his employer.

The real pressure can only come up if the employer ends up threatening the guy with reporting him to the authorities or other unpleasantries. And besides the (silly) law that punishes people who employ illegal immigrants, the way to remove that threat is by removing the "illegal" tag from their status.

I suppose it would be idealistic of me to call for completely open borders, but how about a rule that state-sponsored healthcare, education and so on are only available to citizens and people with visas, but there is no threat of punishment or deportation either. Basically the "illegals" would be working, but not be putting much pressure on the state's various programs. And if the guy wants to make it more permanent or take advantage of taxpayer-funded programs, he can just ask for a visa (which should be a lot easier to get) and become a fully documented immigrant. It would involve turning non-documented people away from emergency rooms and public schools though, which could be bad PR (maybe some "pay fee first, get service then" thing could be worked out). If the immigrant in question is just the father or son sending money back to his family, that shouldn't be a huge issue. And if he brings his family, he should have a visa.

But as far as I can see, everyone benefits. Except the nativists, of course, but I really can't be bothered thinking about them.
Well, first of all there is a fundamental difference in outlook that we're going to have trouble with that I should deal with right away.

I don't believe in the magical all knowing powers of the market, nor do I believe that the market in any way operates for the good of anything but the market. To me, the market is an unrully beast that will trample you and everything you hold dear if given half a chance.

So to argue that it is 'what the market will bare' is like saying, 'don't put up a fence, if you get eaten by a lion it's what the wild would bare.'

So from that fundamental difference in how we regard the market you can see why I dismiss most of what you say here.

What you propose, with the exception of easily acquired visas and no punishment, is what we have going now. If we protect workers, we protect workers, not just the local workers that we hire unless we can find some foreign workers to exploit and endanger.

Farmers in California, Florida, and the plain states are reporting that due to the construction boom and the current raids, there has been a sharp fall off of migrant workers willing to pick the crops that are feeding us. This is causing farmers to leave the crops out to rot, losing billions of dollars for the industry as a whole.

Poltry plants now also report that after the raids, they DID get Americans applying for the job at minium wage, but they leave after about a week or two once they see how hard the job is. Turn over has shot up to very silly levels.
Clearly the ones working at the poultry plants didn't really need the job. As to the ones picking crops, I haven't seen the futures going up for either citrus or vegetables. I think the drought on the east coast is doing far worse damage.

I did. Even before this. I'm still curious. Are there really jobs that U.S. citizens just won't do?

I can buy that there may be a labor shortage. After all, we're still around 4.5% unemployment, even after absorbing 12+ million illegals.

Well, Champ, then brush up on your comprehension because it addresses that and explains why it's in quotes.

But you know what really makes it my business? The word illegal. We live in a country that has embraced the rule of law. When laws that have existed since the Constitution are ignored to allow a small economic advantage to a group that can profit by hiring illegal workers, then it becomes my business as a responsible citizen.
No, it doesn't. You just make it your business as someone who thinks law and order are to be enforced regardless of any other considerations.

A law doesn't have to be just, nor does it have to make sense. Enforcing a law can be a bad thing. By ignoring the pros (and the cons) and concentrate only on whether or not a piece of paper says it's legal, you're being irrational.

Let's face it, borders, citizenship and the like are going to become less and less rigid as the 21st century moves on. Plenty of people have dual citizenships these days. In Europe, borders have basically ceased to exist as far as people working is concerned. Some countries embrace the fact that with information flowing freely, and wealth still so unequally distributed in the world, people are going to want to move. Not only are there plenty of good things to this, but it's also extremely difficult (most likely impossible) to stop. Hence the triumph of the pragmatists in Spain when they offered an amnesty (Spain still exists (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,482109,00.html)).

The issue is how to properly manage this, given the constraints imposed by the global economic, technological and social pressures. Politics can't stop it, politics can only remove the rough edges. Repeatedly yelling "law and order" doesn't help in that undertaking. It's a curious feeling, but I happen to be with Bush on this. He seems to gauge the situation better than many Republicans...maybe it's got to do with him being from Texas or something.

And finally, a fun fact: In the 19th century, nobody had a passport. None of those Irish people who came into New York Harbour had proper papers or work permits. These laws that have been in place "since the Constitution" were as meaningless then as they are now.

And finally, a fun fact: In the 19th century, nobody had a passport. None of those Irish people who came into New York Harbour had proper papers or work permits. These laws that have been in place "since the Constitution" were as meaningless then as they are now.
Sovereign nations need to enforce immigration to protect their citizens. That has always been done. Even in the 19th century. Immigrants needed a sponsor, they needed to pass through Ellis Island, and they needed to be accepted into the country. Plenty weren't. But the rules were the same for all of them. What we're proposing, and I'm not naive enough to believe we'll ever deport all our illegal immigrants, is that we have two paths to legal status. One is to apply for a visa, wait and come legally. The other is to do otherwise. That's irrational.

Clearly the ones working at the poultry plants didn't really need the job.
Clearly the plants need people the pack the chickens. And if there isn't any native born folks willing to pack... what then?

As to the ones picking crops, I haven't seen the futures going up for either citrus or vegetables. I think the drought on the east coast is doing far worse damage.
This is a current issue which is hopefully going to be solved, but I did add links talking about it.

But, beyond that, the point is made, we don't have enough native born folks willing to do these jobs, or at least not long enough to get them done.

Which is, again, why building a big ass wall and then employing the Tinker Bell defence (If we wish hard enough, people won't find a way around the wall like they have done with every OTHER wall in history) and waiting a few years isn't going to work.

And finally, a fun fact: In the 19th century, nobody had a passport. None of those Irish people who came into New York Harbour had proper papers or work permits. These laws that have been in place "since the Constitution" were as meaningless then as they are now.

Not really. While we allowed some groups to enter, we denied others. Slavs, the Chinese, etc. And again after WWI, when us and the Europeans were worrying about "mongrel races" interbreeding with white women due to the number of war dead, we opened the gates to the Scandinavians (thought to be the whitest) and to a lesser extent the Irish (most eager to immigrate). We've always had restrictions - they've just been enforced unfairly. What we need today is a reasonable immigration quota, enforced in a reasonable way. :)

Well, Champ, then brush up on your comprehension because it addresses that and explains why it's in quotes.
Your closing quote should be inside the comma. It's more intelligible that way. The way you typed it looks like random punctuation.

So from that fundamental difference in how we regard the market you can see why I dismiss most of what you say here.
Well, market or no market, plenty of people are taking risks and going through a lot of trouble to get exploited by employers in the States.

So to me it looks like it's better than whatever they were doing before.

The real reason an undocumented immigrant can be exploited right now is because they can constantly be threatened with the law. If the law ceased to be a factor in the relationship, it would be just like any other low-wage, low-skill employment relationship.

Ultimately I give you the same reason as I give Myrmidonisia: people are going to keep coming, and as long as there are advantages to be had from not being documented, those advantages will be exploited. Much like you can't stop drug trafficking by locking up users or even spraying poison on fields in Colombia, you won't be able to stop undocumented workers working on the black market. The job of politicians is in both cases "harm minimisation", meaning figuring out a way to accomodate the situation that is both feasible and minimises the damage done to people.

Clearly the plants need people the pack the chickens. And if there isn't any native born folks willing to pack... what then?


This is a current issue which is hopefully going to be solved, but I did add links talking about it.

But, beyond that, the point is made, we don't have enough native born folks willing to do these jobs, or at least not long enough to get them done.

Which is, again, why building a big ass wall and then employing the Tinker Bell defence (If we wish hard enough, people won't find a way around the wall like they have done with every OTHER wall in history) and waiting a few years isn't going to work.
Saw the links, read them...

One of the things that make it easier? for illegals to take crappy jobs like poultry processing is that they are willing to move to where the work is. It's not like we don't have enough unemployed, it's just that they're not in the right place, which seems to be the point of the AJC article on poultry processing.

The western growers have been complaining since I lived out there in 1993 about not having enough illegals to pick the crops. But somehow, they always manage. last time I recall reading anything about was at least two years ago when they thought they'd lose the whole Cling Peach crop...The real problem is that they're afraid to pay fair wages for the work.

Sovereign nations need to enforce immigration to protect their citizens. That has always been done.
And gay marriage has always been illegal. Neither makes a whole lot of sense.

One is to apply for a visa, wait and come legally. The other is to do otherwise. That's irrational.
It's not irrational for the illegal immigrants. It's not irrational for their employers. As conservative Americans like to say "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". Same deal here.

What is irrational is hanging on to failing policies and rigidly opposing something that can't be stopped, rather than to roll with the punches, so to speak.

Well, market or no market, plenty of people are taking risks and going through a lot of trouble to get exploited by employers in the States.

So to me it looks like it's better than whatever they were doing before.

The real reason an undocumented immigrant can be exploited right now is because they can constantly be threatened with the law. If the law ceased to be a factor in the relationship, it would be just like any other low-wage, low-skill employment relationship.

Ultimately I give you the same reason as I give Myrmidonisia: people are going to keep coming, and as long as there are advantages to be had from not being documented, those advantages will be exploited. Much like you can't stop drug trafficking by locking up users or even spraying poison on fields in Colombia, you won't be able to stop undocumented workers working on the black market. The job of politicians is in both cases "harm minimisation", meaning figuring out a way to accomodate the situation that is both feasible and minimises the damage done to people.
Well this is the difference between me and Myri. I'm worried about the exploitation-and yes, being exploited might be better than their altrenative, but that doesn't excuse the exploiting. Really, it's hard to exploit people who come from a good situation, so it's almost in the definition.

I know that they're coming. I don't really have a problem with that. If they're part of the workforce, then the should be afforded the same protections as the rest of the workforce. So I would punish the employers as they're the ones doing the most harmful end run-the immigrants would be more than happy to work for higher wages and benefits.

What we need today is a reasonable immigration quota, enforced in a reasonable way. :)
But quotas aren't reasonable. The number of low-wage immigrant workers supplied and demanded can change all the time. I have my doubts whether a quota could be so flexible (or indeed whether such a flexible quota would serve your purpose).

You'd end up artificially fiddling about with a market, which as always just results in the whole thing moving underground.

Sovereign nations need to enforce immigration to protect their citizens. That has always been done. Even in the 19th century. Immigrants needed a sponsor, they needed to pass through Ellis Island, and they needed to be accepted into the country. Plenty weren't. But the rules were the same for all of them. What we're proposing, and I'm not naive enough to believe we'll ever deport all our illegal immigrants, is that we have two paths to legal status. One is to apply for a visa, wait and come legally. The other is to do otherwise. That's irrational.
Actually no, thoughout most of US history, there was very little controls on immigration. That great story of Ellis Island is rather false. Immigrants from back then did not have to face the barrage of paperwork, tests, interviews (and above all, cost) that immigrants do now.

Sorry, but if your great-grandfather came in to the US in the late 1800's chances are all he had to do was sign his name in a book and get a medical check-up that was more a once over to make sure you didn't have small pox and TB.

BTW, the cost of a green card is now into the thousands of dollars, how are folks making less than $20 a day supposed to get one now anyway?

Saw the links, read them...

One of the things that make it easier? for illegals to take crappy jobs like poultry processing is that they are willing to move to where the work is. It's not like we don't have enough unemployed, it's just that they're not in the right place, which seems to be the point of the AJC article on poultry processing.
Well, obviously chicken processing plants probably want to be next to chicken farms. Both wouldn't do too well in the middle of New York City now would they?

The western growers have been complaining since I lived out there in 1993 about not having enough illegals to pick the crops. But somehow, they always manage. last time I recall reading anything about was at least two years ago when they thought they'd lose the whole Cling Peach crop...The real problem is that they're afraid to pay fair wages for the work.
Farmers all over have been warning about this problem for a long time. Sorry, there's still not enough Americans willing to go do that.

Actually no, thoughout most of US history, there was very little controls on immigration. That great story of Ellis Island is rather false. Immigrants from back then did not have to face the barrage of paperwork, tests, interviews (and above all, cost) that immigrants do now.

Sorry, but if your great-grandfather came in to the US in the late 1800's chances are all he had to do was sign his name in a book and get a medical check-up that was more a once over to make sure you didn't have small pox and TB.

BTW, the cost of a green card is now into the thousands of dollars, how are folks making less than $20 a day supposed to get one now anyway?
I don't disagree that immigration needs reform, but not poorly thought out reform. That's worse than nothing at all. We know how to manage what we have now. We have no idea what this bill will require of us.

I still don't have problems with temporary residents, but we need to control who gets in, know where they go, and keep track of when its time for them to leave. We can't even do that now with our legally admitted residents.

Well, obviously chicken processing plants probably want to be next to chicken farms. Both wouldn't do too well in the middle of New York City now would they?

But if the unemployed from NYC would head down to Arkansas, that would be a different story. I don't know why we don't expect that.


Farmers all over have been warning about this problem for a long time. Sorry, there's still not enough Americans willing to go do that.
Farmers are always worried about something. In this case, it has yet to be a problem. No food has rotted in the fields for the lack of pickers. Weather has certainly caused more losses than a lack of people to pick crops.

But quotas aren't reasonable. The number of low-wage immigrant workers supplied and demanded can change all the time. I have my doubts whether a quota could be so flexible (or indeed whether such a flexible quota would serve your purpose).

You'd end up artificially fiddling about with a market, which as always just results in the whole thing moving underground.

I do believe that *some* quota can be found. Either way, border enforcement and immigration are not one and the same. We want to weed out criminals and the diseased, for one. We want to give preference to skilled labor where possible, and allow for immigration from other countries that have been deprived due to the overwhelming influence of the millions coming from Mexico. There are thousands of deserving people on waiting lists because we can't regulate the borders at all.

I don't disagree that immigration needs reform, but not poorly thought out reform. That's worse than nothing at all. We know how to manage what we have now. We have no idea what this bill will require of us.
I'd say doing nothing in the hopes that it will magically go away is far worse than doing something. Sticking our heads in the sand won't stop people coming over the borders and over staying their visas.

I don't disagree that immigration needs reform, but not poorly thought out reform. That's worse than nothing at all. We know how to manage what we have now. We have no idea what this bill will require of us.

I still don't have problems with temporary residents, but we need to control who gets in, know where they go, and keep track of when its time for them to leave. We can't even do that now with our legally admitted residents.

There was only one group happy with this bill, and that was big business. No doubt you and I opposed this bill for different reasons, but I'm glad it's dead for the time being. Reid said he'd bring it back up before the end of the session, but he doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry to do so.

I'd say doing nothing in the hopes that it will magically go away is far worse than doing something. Sticking our heads in the sand won't stop people coming over the borders and over staying their visas.

Yeah but doing nothing can be better than doing something harmful, and I think this bill did all the wrong things and none of the right ones. It's a case where the smoke and mirrors on the Mexican border didn't work for once. The xenophobes knew they were being taken for a ride and they let their Senators know it.

We want to weed out criminals and the diseased, for one.
Easier said than done. It might just be more realistic to deal with them as you would with a US-born criminal or diseased person.

We want to give preference to skilled labor where possible...
That's a different cattle of fish entirely. That area needs reform as well, but I'm assuming we're talking specifically about low-skilled immigrants.

...and allow for immigration from other countries that have been deprived due to the overwhelming influence of the millions coming from Mexico. There are thousands of deserving people on waiting lists because we can't regulate the borders at all.
I would think the reason you have people on waiting lists is because you put them on waiting lists.

If you didn't regulate the borders at all, you'd have no waiting lists and it wouldn't matter where an immigrant is coming from.

The problem is that you think there is some limit, some desirable level of immigration. Fact of the matter is that even if there were, the government wouldn't know for the same reason that it doesn't know how much petrol should cost.

Tell me Fass, how does the Swedish government deal with people that sneak across the border and seek employment for discount wages?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/EU_location_SWE.png

Well, seeing as our only non-EU border is with Norway, we don't exactly have a problem with people sneaking across it, what with citizens of the EU/EEA and of the other Nordic Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Council) members being able enter Sweden without visas and not needing residency permits to live here.

As a contrast, how does one immigrate permanently to Sweden?

I have no idea, since I've unsurprisingly never had to immigrate to my home nation. I'm sure the Swedish Migration Board's website (http://www.migrationsverket.se) has info on it.

But if the unemployed from NYC would head down to Arkansas, that would be a different story. I don't know why we don't expect that.
Lack of transportation. Unwillingness to do so. I don't know. But you're still doging around the issue that Americans are unwilling to work these jobs for long.

Farmers are always worried about something. In this case, it has yet to be a problem. No food has rotted in the fields for the lack of pickers. Weather has certainly caused more losses than a lack of people to pick crops.
In some cases pears, strawberries and other crops have gone unharvested. In others, farmers have chosen not to plant, or have reduced plantings of the most labor-intensive crops, such as asparagus. Economic losses have been estimated in the tens of millions of dollars.

Among the most notable was the loss of 20-30 percent of Northern California's pear harvest last year because of a lack of pickers, representing $15 million in lost value, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation.

Farmers also saw losses on peaches, plums, nectarines and other crops in California.
http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=1631
You were saying?

Yeah but doing nothing can be better than doing something harmful, and I think this bill did all the wrong things and none of the right ones. It's a case where the smoke and mirrors on the Mexican border didn't work for once. The xenophobes knew they were being taken for a ride and they let their Senators know it.
It was a start though, and one that actually looked like it could pass as opposed to what will happen, which is nothing as both sides wingnuts scamper off to scream about their own pet projects.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/EU_location_SWE.png

Well, seeing as our only non-EU border is with Norway, we don't exactly have a problem with people sneaking across it, what with citizens of the EU/EEA and of the other Nordic Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Council) members being able enter Sweden without visas and not needing residency permits to live here.



I have no idea, since I've unsurprisingly never had to immigrate to my home nation. I'm sure the Swedish Migration Board's website (http://www.migrationsverket.se) has info on it.
Ha! Beat you to all of that!

...yeah, I know.

But apparently, if you scroll back to his response to that, it was a point not a question. It sure looked like a question, though...

Ha! Beat you to all of that!

...yeah, I know.

But, you didn't have a snazzy map educating him about our geopolitical location, of which his border-centred question alluded to him being ignorant. So, "ha!" to you.

But apparently, if you scroll back to his response to that, it was a point not a question. It sure looked like a question, though...

Well, it certainly didn't look like a point, nor did it have anything to do with my comment as to thinking that making the "illegals" "legal" would be what they wanted (not that I ever believed it was their "illegal" status they had the most problems with, which is I suppose why one sees the defensive bitching...).

Easier said than done. It might just be more realistic to deal with them as you would with a US-born criminal or diseased person.

That's a different cattle of fish entirely. That area needs reform as well, but I'm assuming we're talking specifically about low-skilled immigrants.

I would think the reason you have people on waiting lists is because you put them on waiting lists.

If you didn't regulate the borders at all, you'd have no waiting lists and it wouldn't matter where an immigrant is coming from.

The problem is that you think there is some limit, some desirable level of immigration. Fact of the matter is that even if there were, the government wouldn't know for the same reason that it doesn't know how much petrol should cost.

If we could weed out the diseased and the criminal in 1910, I think we could construct similar infrastructure today. If you recall the genius who flew around the world with TB last week, you might agree that there's a need to screen out travellers with illnesses. Malaria, Chagas, Yellow Fever, TB, etc. all come in routinely from foreign travellers. Unrestricted entry leaves us vulnerable to that. As for criminals, requiring a consular card from the nation of origin isn't too difficult.

Key words here: Living Wage.

American will do those jobs that people claim only illegals will do, but you can't expect to pay them in pennies.

ETA: I'm all for legal immigration reform. I have family members that have been waiting for years to get here, and they are going through the legal channels. I say make it easier for folks to come here in the first place, but set some sort of guidelines to make sure they benefit this country somehow. Also, no amnesty whatsoever.

Lack of transportation. Unwillingness to do so. I don't know. But you're still doging around the issue that Americans are unwilling to work these jobs for long.



http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=1631
You were saying?

Okay, California agriculture lost $15 million on a few crops. That's too bad for the agri-corp that planted them. Let's open the floodgates to make sure that never happens again.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/EU_location_SWE.png

Well, seeing as our only non-EU border is with Norway, we don't exactly have a problem with people sneaking across it, what with citizens of the EU/EEA and of the other Nordic Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Council) members being able enter Sweden without visas and not needing residency permits to live here.



I have no idea, since I've unsurprisingly never had to immigrate to my home nation. I'm sure the Swedish Migration Board's website (http://www.migrationsverket.se) has info on it.
So the reindeer herders just don't cause that much of a problem? Thanks.

It was a start though, and one that actually looked like it could pass as opposed to what will happen, which is nothing as both sides wingnuts scamper off to scream about their own pet projects.

No, a 'start' would have been something that was clear and concise and debatable. This grand compromise was none of that. Like I said earlier, one has to solve big problems in small steps.

Cloture?

The senate needs to stop making up words.

Farmers are always worried about something. In this case, it has yet to be a problem. No food has rotted in the fields for the lack of pickers. Weather has certainly caused more losses than a lack of people to pick crops.

Okay, California agriculture lost $15 million on a few crops. That's too bad for the agri-corp that planted them. Let's open the floodgates to make sure that never happens again.
Classic bullshit argument tactic

1) Argue that something will never happen while completely discounting the effects of proposed plans. Ie. Farmers don't have a problem now with fruit they can't harvest for lack of pickers, so even if we stop all immigration and deport people, they will still have plenty of people to pick crops.

2) When confronted with evidence, dismiss it out of hand as a singular occurrence that could never happen again or never happen anywhere else.

Cloture?

The senate needs to stop making up words.
Misspelled closure. Closure for those endless talk that would probably end up talking about steamed cabbage and luscious golden apples.

Misspelled closure. Closure for those endless talk that would probably end up talking about steamed cabbage and luscious golden apples.

Ah, but it's an actual word now. That means someone, somewhere, misspelled "closure" and was so damn stubborn people started pretending it was a word rather than trying to correct him.

Cloture?

The senate needs to stop making up words.
It's French, what can I say? Legislative bodies have been using it for years.

Ah, but it's an actual word now. That means someone, somewhere, misspelled "closure" and was so damn stubborn people started pretending it was a word rather than trying to correct him.
Senator Ormond: "... well, you know, this bill about immigration, er... is not good... is not good, unlike my lobster dish. Well, has anyone tasted my steamed lobster? Ah, I know my fellow senator from South Carolina has tasted it back, right, Mr. Durden??? ... um, where was I? Ah, I am talking to prevent this Senate from voting on this piece of trash - "
Senator Smith (shouts): "Well stop the sophistry now! Let's vote for clo- clo-... cloture!"
*silence. then whispers.*
Senator Adamson: "What did Senator Smith say?"
Senator Thorne: "I... I don't know. Something that sounds like cloture?"
Senator Adamson: "What the heck is that supposed to mean?"
Senator Thorne: *shrugs* "Let's ask Diana over here."
Senator Stein: "Cloture? I don't know... but since our Senator Smith is from our party, it must be something in favor of our side."
(on the other side of the aisle...)
Senator Bourne: "What is Smith proposing? Cloture? What is that?"
Senator Durden: "I think it's a spice for Senator Ormond's dish."
Senator Jones: "No, it's a wedding gown. You know, like haute couture."
Senator Bourne: "But whatever it is, it must be opposed."
(later...)
Reporter: "The Senate today voted 55-44 for a clo...ture, cloture vote. Nebraska Senat-"
Newscaster: "Ellen - what does that cloture mean?"
Reporter: "Come again, Jim?'
Newscaster: "What does that cloture mean?"
Reporter: *pauses* "I don't know."
Newscaster: "Now, what effect does cloture have?"
Reporter" "All I know is that if it fails, Senator Ormond's talk about his lobster dish wound continue. Gosh, all those talk makes me hungry."

Like I said earlier, one has to solve big problems in small steps.

I am not so sure that is the case. The immigration debate is not abopuit one single problem. It is a variety of related problems, and many of these problems make it difficult or impossible to solve the related ones.

I will use your example of border control upthread. The USA, with its powerful military and technological dominance should be able to protect its own borders, so why doesn't it? I think it's because the businesses that profit from using illegal workers apply pressure on politicians to ensure a border porous enough for the illegals to come through.

So in order to heighten border security, you have to find a way to make sure that the affected companies still have a labour pool. With the existing labour shortage and the fact that many US citizens do not want to process poultry for minimum wage, that is difficult.

Complicated problems often require comprehensive solutions, instead of a series of smaller steps. I thank God every day that this takes place in the realms of economics iand politics more than they do in the world of bicycle and building repair.

EDIT: Clôturer is the french transitive verb for 'enclosing with a fence, or finishing a debate.'

I am not so sure that is the case. The immigration debate is not abopuit one single problem. It is a variety of related problems, and many of these problems make it difficult or impossible to solve the related ones.

I will use your example of border control upthread. The USA, with its powerful military and technological dominance should be able to protect its own borders, so why doesn't it? I think it's because the businesses that profit from using illegal workers apply pressure on politicians to ensure a border porous enough for the illegals to come through.

So in order to heighten border security, you have to find a way to make sure that the affected companies still have a labour pool. With the existing labour shortage and the fact that many US citizens do not want to process poultry for minimum wage, that is difficult.

Complicated problems often require comprehensive solutions, instead of a series of smaller steps. I thank God every day that this takes place in the realms of economics iand politics more than they do in the world of bicycle and building repair.

EDIT: Clôturer is the french transitive verb for 'enclosing with a fence, or finishing a debate.'
Of course it's special interest pressure that keeps the borders from being controlled. There are still simple solutions to making labor available. One is to provide a wage that will attract legal residents. That probably won't be enough because I'm sure we have a labor shortage in the service industries.

Another simple solution is to establish a guest worker visa. Make it available only overseas, through our consulates and embassies, or other employment agencies. But it has to be something that cannot be obtained in the United States. Then fine and/or jail any employer that employs illegally resident workers. Every single employer needs to check for work-authorizing documents already in order to complete the INS form. Here is an excerpt from my employer's HR page.

INS Form I-9 By federal law, this form must be completed within three (3)days of the date of hire. Individuals must present original documentation that established (1) their identity, and (2) their eligibility to work in the United States. Examples of acceptable documents include:

o A United States passport
o A valid driver’s license plus an original Social Security card
o A picture ID plus an original government-issued birth certificate (hospital issued certificates are not acceptable)
o An unexpired foreign passport with INS-approved work authorization


Adding this new guest worker visa to the list shouldn't pose too much of a problem. Controlling this problem is like controlling a lot of others. Keep it simple and enforce laws that already exist.

S1348 could have been that simple, or very close -- I'm sure there's a hole or two like requiring background investigations for workers to weed out criminals, or requiring a sponsor before granting the visa...

Tell me, though, doesn't this sound like a better first step than a bill that no one understands, no one can amend, and no one can foretell the consequences that it will bring on us?

Of course it's special interest pressure that keeps the borders from being controlled. There are still simple solutions to making labor available. One is to provide a wage that will attract legal residents. That probably won't be enough because I'm sure we have a labor shortage in the service industries.

Why would employers provide a higher wage to attract citizens when they cuurently can attract illegal labour at a much lower cost? There is no profit in that. And the government will not impose such a wage system on the market, would it?

Another simple solution is to establish a guest worker visa. Make it available only overseas, through our consulates and embassies, or other employment agencies. But it has to be something that cannot be obtained in the United States.

This works fine util the visa runs out. Then the worker simply goes underground, and you are then faced with all the same problems. A system like the one you propose that eventually results in some sort of permanent legal status for the worker would eliminate that. You might want to make this visa available at the border too.

Then fine and/or jail any employer that employs illegally resident workers. ...snipped for brevity...Keep it simple and enforce laws that already exist.

I think the same pressure groups that keep the border porous would also fight any legislation that punishes businesses for hiring illegals. However, adding the visa to the system, as you described, would be a good idea that is easily implemented.

S1348 could have been that simple, or very close -- I'm sure there's a hole or two like requiring background investigations for workers to weed out criminals, or requiring a sponsor before granting the visa...

Tell me, though, doesn't this sound like a better first step than a bill that no one understands, no one can amend, and no one can foretell the consequences that it will bring on us?

I am absolutely positive that you and I could hammer out a better deal than S1348 in ten minutes of internet arguing.

My criticism of your position really only lies in that any first step must take into account these pressure groups, and I don't believe yours does.

S1438 is the immigration reform bill that offers illegal immigrants amnesty and possible citizenship if they meet certain conditions, IIRC. Many conservatives are pissed about it, especially since Bush is backing it against his own party members. If I can also recall parliamentary procedure correctly, a successful cloture vote will end debate on the bill and force the Senate to vote on it.

is that the one baised on education and type of job skill?

I am absolutely positive that you and I could hammer out a better deal than S1348 in ten minutes of internet arguing.
Coming up with sensible solutions isn't the problem. I'd imagine even Myrmidonisia and I could come up with a reasonable compromise in ten minutes of discussion. The problem is getting it passed and put into law when the people with the most influence are big businesses who want the status quo. You can't get anything meaningful passed when they're the people who have the ear of the legislators.

Coming up with sensible solutions isn't the problem. I'd imagine even Myrmidonisia and I could come up with a reasonable compromise in ten minutes of discussion. The problem is getting it passed and put into law when the people with the most influence are big businesses who want the status quo. You can't get anything meaningful passed when they're the people who have the ear of the legislators.

What if you presented them with an option that allowed them to make even more money?

I have to go eat. Be back soon.

We're running into a failure to communicate here. Amnesty generally refers to letting someone who's broken the law off without any kind of punishment. The way I understand it, tho, the bill would force people to pay a stiff fine ($2K? $5K?) in order to get the Z visas. In order to get citizenship, you'd have to leave the US, go back to your home country, and go through the process. I'm not seeing this as amnesty...

But the whole thing hinges on getting our borders 'secure.' Not having read the bill, I don't know what the Congresscritters definition of 'secure' is, but the only way to truly secure the southern border (I assume that's what's meant by 'the border' in this bill. I don't hear a lot of people complaining about those damn French Canadians sneaking across the northern border) is to put up a twenty foot wall, topped with broken glass and concertina wire. Being as that's all, you know, cost prohibitive and stuff, I'm not seeing the Z visas or path to citizenship getting off the ground anytime soon.

Of course employers are complaining that Americans won't do certain jobs: They aren't willing to pay enough.

We're a capitalistic society and sing the praises of Adam Smith and supply and demand. Well, if there is a shortness of laborers, then their wages should go up. We shouldn't be accepting illegals and underpaying them.

Instead our attempts at "enforcement" mean that companies use immigration status to threaten workers, and keep them from unionizing, where they might actually get an American wage.

Let's see, poor wages, poor/unsafe working conditions, yeah, why would anyone want to do it? Now offer healthcare, safer working conditions and pay enough, and sure!

What if you presented them with an option that allowed them to make even more money?

I have to go eat. Be back soon.

About the only way I see that happening is if we legalized slavery or indentured servitude--the latter is practically what we have in the case of companies knowingly hiring undocumented workers as it is.

About the only way I see that happening is if we legalized slavery or indentured servitude--the latter is practically what we have in the case of companies knowingly hiring undocumented workers as it is.
Tax credits.

It's not an immigration bill that is needed, but some form of uniform labor standards.

Remove the incentive, remove the problem. Of course that is too complicated for most people.

It's not an immigration bill that is needed, but some form of uniform labor standards.

Remove the incentive, remove the problem. Of course that is too complicated for most people.
Uniform labor standards! Absurd! Totally unfair to the poor subsidized industries and small companies! Let's instead keep the current system and treat the illness by treating the symptoms.

Uniform labor standards! Absurd! Totally unfair to the poor subsidized industries and small companies! Let's instead keep the current system and treat the illness by treating the symptoms.
Or rather pretending we're treating the symptoms but really making the problem worse.

Seconded.

Thirded.

Or rather pretending we're treating the symptoms but really making the problem worse.

even pretense is a bit hard in this case. mainly we're just working on the "what could we do to make the problem as bad as possible?" angle.

Some hope and shred of reason and sanity does remain in the world, after all.

No Amnesty. Seal the Border. Deport Them All.

I suggested elsewhere that we simply expel their kids from our schools, kick them out of our prisons, deny them access to our emergency rooms, and deny them jobs. The illegals will deport themselves. So, I don't want to hear any horseshit about how it's impossible to deport the illegals.

Some hope and shred of reason and sanity does remain in the world, after all.

No Amnesty. Seal the Border. Deport Them All.

I suggested elsewhere that we simply expel their kids from our schools, kick them out of our prisons, deny them access to our emergency rooms, and deny them jobs. The illegals will deport themselves. So, I don't want to hear any horseshit about how it's impossible to deport the illegals.

Yeah well if you're hoping the defeat of this bill will result in what you're hoping for, you're even more clueless than you sound. And you conveniently ignore that a lot of the kids are legal citizens, born here in the US. So how are you legally going to deny them education and the rest of their rights? Hmmm?

Some hope and shred of reason and sanity does remain in the world, after all.

No Amnesty. Seal the Border. Deport Them All.

I suggested elsewhere that we simply expel their kids from our schools, kick them out of our prisons, deny them access to our emergency rooms, and deny them jobs. The illegals will deport themselves. So, I don't want to hear any horseshit about how it's impossible to deport the illegals.

Ummm... Then who will do the jobs? In order for them to get Americans to do them, they'd have to raise wages, institute benefits, etc, etc. This would raise prices on just about anything you care to name. I'm just not seeing politicians going for it.

And what about the kids who are US citizens? Those born here? You know, that inconvenient little bit of the constitution that guarantees them equal protections under the law? (It also guarantees the rights of everyone within these here borders, but that's another argument). Should they be kicked out of schools? Arrested because their parents aren't here legally? Be denied jobs?

Seal the border? How? Do you have the money to build the twenty foot wall across the entire border with Mexico? (I assume Mexicans are the 'they' you're talking about - don't hear much bitching about those French Canadians sneaking across the border...) 'Cause I sure don't. Nor does the federal gov't. So... how do you propose to do this?

Ummm... Then who will do the jobs? In order for them to get Americans to do them, they'd have to raise wages, institute benefits, etc, etc. This would raise prices on just about anything you care to name. I'm just not seeing politicians going for it.And let's not forget that according to the government, we're already in a tight job market. (That 4.5% unemployment number is bullshit, but bear with me.) Take even 6 million peple out of the labor force, and you're going to see wages shoot up crazy, along with massive inflation. Now, that might help me a bit, as inflation would make my student loans cost less in the long term, but the overall effect on the economy would be a bad one.


Seal the border? How? Do you have the money to build the twenty foot wall across the entire border with Mexico? (I assume Mexicans are the 'they' you're talking about - don't hear much bitching about those French Canadians sneaking across the border...) 'Cause I sure don't. Nor does the federal gov't. So... how do you propose to do this?
Let's also remember that more than 40% of the people here illegally came here on work visas and just overstayed them. That wall won't do much to stop them, now will it?

Ummm... Then who will do the jobs? In order for them to get Americans to do them, they'd have to raise wages, institute benefits, etc, etc. This would raise prices on just about anything you care to name. I'm just not seeing politicians going for it.


Do the job yourself then you lazy bastard. Or pay someone a fair days pay to do it.

My main problem with a whole lot of the anti-immigration arguments is that they seem directed against people who look different. There are probably plenty of illegals here from Ireland, or Russia, or Eastern Europe. Do I hear folks bitching about them? No, I just hear bitching about how Mexicans don't value education, how those people refuse to lean English (bullshit, btw), that they are nothing but a drain on the economy. Against immigration? Fine, but be against all illegals, not just the ones who are darker than you.

Do the job yourself then you lazy bastard. Or pay someone a fair days pay to do it.

'Kay, number one, if you want to insult me, call me a bitch. Since I'm neither male nor illegitimate, being called a bastard doesn't affect me. And that's exactly what I'm proposing, that if people want Americans to do the jobs illegals are currently doing, wages will have to rise, the jobs will have to acquire benefits, etc. But employers will have to pass on these costs to consumers in the form of higher prices. So, still want to boot illegals out if it means six or eight dollars for a head of non-organic lettuce?

S1438 is the immigration reform bill that offers illegal immigrants amnesty and possible citizenship if they meet certain conditions, IIRC. Many conservatives are pissed about it, especially since Bush is backing it against his own party members. If I can also recall parliamentary procedure correctly, a successful cloture vote will end debate on the bill and force the Senate to vote on it.

You should start more threads. Don't forget to put a link to something. :)

Cloture?

The senate needs to stop making up words.

Or at least it could make up words with a comprehensible latin or greek or celtic root. Not just going with a typo.

'Kay, number one, if you want to insult me, call me a bitch. Since I'm neither male nor illegitimate, being called a bastard doesn't affect me. And that's exactly what I'm proposing, that if people want Americans to do the jobs illegals are currently doing, wages will have to rise, the jobs will have to acquire benefits, etc. But employers will have to pass on these costs to consumers in the form of higher prices. So, still want to boot illegals out if it means six or eight dollars for a head of non-organic lettuce?

Honestly, I don't care what lettuce costs. I do pay the neighborhood kids to do my garden. At first I guess they were getting around $20 an hour I suppose, but with clever employee management they pretty much work for free now cause they think it is a competition. (I give them a fixed fee and told them they can use it as a portfolio for other jobs, works well for all of us. Plus they can use me as a reference).

Anyway, mexicans aren't the problem.

Honestly, I don't care what lettuce costs. I do pay the neighborhood kids to do my garden. At first I guess they were getting around $20 an hour I suppose, but with clever employee management they pretty much work for free now cause they think it is a competition. (I give them a fixed fee and told them they can use it as a portfolio for other jobs, works well for all of us. Plus they can use me as a reference).

Anyway, mexicans aren't the problem.

Erm... How exactly does this address any of the issues I brought up? I mean, I know I'm tired, and there have been a couple of wine coolers tonight, but WTF?

Erm... How exactly does this address any of the issues I brought up? I mean, I know I'm tired, and there have been a couple of wine coolers tonight, but WTF?

It won't cost so much for lettuce is my point.

In other words american management is shit.

Or at least it could make up words with a comprehensible latin or greek or celtic root. Not just going with a typo.

Damn, you people are ignorant. No, "cloture" is not a typo. It is a loanword taken from the French, where it is spelt "clôture". The procedure originated in the French National Assembly.

Some hope and shred of reason and sanity does remain in the world, after all.

No Amnesty. Seal the Border. Deport Them All.

I suggested elsewhere that we simply expel their kids from our schools, kick them out of our prisons, deny them access to our emergency rooms, and deny them jobs. The illegals will deport themselves. So, I don't want to hear any horseshit about how it's impossible to deport the illegals.
We are never going to deport the 12+ million people that are here illegally. It's just not what Americans do. What we need to do is figure out a way to expel the undesirable illegal residents and integrate the ones that want to be here for legal purposes.

I don't expect we can even get a success rate above maybe 75%, but we need to take some first steps. Ensuring accuracy on the INS form that all employers are required to complete would be a start.

What we don't need is a very complex solution rammed down our throats in a short period of time with the simple justification that "We know best". If the bill is that good, let's have hearings, debate, and amendments. It will withstand them. If it's a bad bill, the process will improve it.

Damn, you people are ignorant. No, "cloture" is not a typo. It is a loanword taken from the French, where it is spelt "clôture". The procedure originated in the French National Assembly.
Don't blame them, they're products of a fine public education.

Again, people fail to see the fundamental problem with current immigration laws. I don't see the problem with allowing immigrants into this country. There shouldn't be a set "limit" as to how many people can enter this country. As long as they are law abiding citizens who can pass a background check, they can enter this country legally. If they can stay crime-free for X amount of time, they can then receive their permanent visa.

This is the WRONG time for an amnesty. I do believe that one final amnesty is in order, but that must be AFTER the border is secured, either with a fence or full time ARMED patrol by Border Patrol agents.

Damn, you people are ignorant. No, "cloture" is not a typo. It is a loanword taken from the French, where it is spelt "clôture". The procedure originated in the French National Assembly.

OK, I should have wiki'd it. Now that I have done that I will help to alleviate the general ignorance by quoting:

In parliamentary procedure, cloture (pr: KLO-cher) (also called closure, and sometimes a guillotine) is a motion or process aimed at bringing debate to a quick end.

Now I actually recognize it -- it is quite common in the Australian parliament to close debate and ram legislation through (usually so the pollies can take their long holiday).

And Myri: I've had twenty years to catch up from the "fine public education" I got as a child. It's MY fault, not that of my countrys education system, that I don't recognize a French word when I see one.
I studied German for four years at HS. I hardly learnt a word of it. Whose fault? Mine.

But if you think your education makes you a better person (or should that be "product"?) and at the same time look down on mine because it was public, that pretty clearly illustrates what you are: a snob.

But if you think your education makes you a better person (or should that be "product"?) and at the same time look down on mine because it was public, that pretty clearly illustrates what you are: a snob.

And the fact that it is being done based on a French word puts the 'B' tile on snob on the "x2 Snobbiness for being French" square.

And the fact that it is being done based on a French word puts the 'B' tile on snob on the "x2 Snobbiness for being French" square.

Thanks :) My first post of the morning came out a bit grumpy I think.

I got the "y" in "typo" on the "x3 for being whiney" square, but my word was disallowed. I should be skipping a turn about now ...