NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading many threads on the US ‘immigration problem’, I have come up with something that could be an approach to a solution. But first, I want to clarify what exactly the problems with the current system are. As I see it, these are the main ones:

-overburdened social security net.
-exploitation of illegal underclass.
-cross border criminal networks
-porous border poses a security risk.

The last two are not a direct cause of illegal immigration. They are problems caused by, or are aided by, the established smuggling network.

Yet with all these problems, politicians have not stepped up to resolve these problems. Why not? Well there are several reasons. Some benefits to the community include:

-illegal immigrants make money to help themselves and their families out.
-companies have access to an inexpensive and skilled manual labour force

Other obstacles to change are of a more selfish nature. Many people are currently profiting from the situation. One can assume that certain business owners who employ illegal immigrants make a substantial profit. To protect their investment, they use some of their wealth to influence local politicians and government officials. Legislators are paid to pass laws that make it easier to maintain the status quo or block laws that could possibly change it. Border officials and immigration agents are sometimes paid to look the other way.

Solutions:

For those who wish to immigrate to the USA but are unable to go through the current visa program, I propose a probationary worker visa. This would be available to all non-citizens wishing to work in the USA who have no serious criminal record or medical problems. People with this visa will have a separate, lower minimum wage, and will be unable to receive any social security benefits except emergency medical treatment.

For illegal immigrants currently residing in the USA, I propose a partial amnesty: Anyone currently residing in the USA illegally must register themselves. They will not be deported, but will receive probationary worker visas as outlined above.

After five years of working in the USA with no criminal record, probationary visa holders would get their permanent resident visas. Five years after that, they get their citizenship. Existing visa programs could continue as usual for those who want to make a better wage when they arrive in the USA.

So, the immigrants would still constitute an underclass in US society, but since they would no longer illegal, they would have legal recourse when faced with intolerable situations. Hence, no more exploitation.

Since there would be much less demand for the coyote’s smuggling services, we could assume that the service would be much more limited. This would reduce the amount of other smuggling as the network would no longer be as big. Also, since the business owners who are employing the immigrants no longer need a porous border, legislators and other government officials can crack down on illegal border crossing without hurting the local economy. These business owners would also save money as they would no longer have to bribe, I mean lobby, the legislators to promote the laws needed to maintain the current system.

As for the social services, I get the feeling that many of laws currently allow access to social services regardless of citizenship. In fact, I think it is even illegal to ask in certain situations. I am going to assume that this situation is also a product of rich business owners lobbying for laws that enable the existence of an illegal underclass. By creating a legal underclass, we do away with the need for laws that enable the continued existence of this illegal underclass. Hopefully, this would create a space for more stringent laws concerning accessibility to social services.

Hopefully, my solution has something in it to offend everyone. Thoughts?

I assume this was too long for all of you.

My apologies.

The problem is not the immigrants - it is the government. Work Visas ARE probationary yet nearly impossible to get. If the government were able to act efficiently and promptly then immigration law compliance wouldn't be a problem - LOL - If they were efficient and prompt then they wouldn't be government!

After reading many threads on the US ‘immigration problem’, I have come up with something that could be an approach to a solution. But first, I want to clarify what exactly the problems with the current system are. As I see it, these are the main ones:

-overburdened social security net.
-exploitation of illegal underclass.
-cross border criminal networks
-porous border poses a security risk.

The last two are not a direct cause of illegal immigration. They are problems caused by, or are aided by, the established smuggling network.

Yet with all these problems, politicians have not stepped up to resolve these problems. Why not? Well there are several reasons. Some benefits to the community include:

-illegal immigrants make money to help themselves and their families out.
-companies have access to an inexpensive and skilled manual labour force

Other obstacles to change are of a more selfish nature. Many people are currently profiting from the situation. One can assume that certain business owners who employ illegal immigrants make a substantial profit. To protect their investment, they use some of their wealth to influence local politicians and government officials. Legislators are paid to pass laws that make it easier to maintain the status quo or block laws that could possibly change it. Border officials and immigration agents are sometimes paid to look the other way.

Solutions:

For those who wish to immigrate to the USA but are unable to go through the current visa program, I propose a probationary worker visa. This would be available to all non-citizens wishing to work in the USA who have no serious criminal record or medical problems. People with this visa will have a separate, lower minimum wage, and will be unable to receive any social security benefits except emergency medical treatment.

Why the lower minimum wage? what would be the advantage it does not seem to reduce any of your listed problems and has the potential to adding to the first one of exploitation (while not completely)

For illegal immigrants currently residing in the USA, I propose a partial amnesty: Anyone currently residing in the USA illegally must register themselves. They will not be deported, but will receive probationary worker visas as outlined above.

This would be a step but if they HAPPEN to be making current minimum wage what would be the benefit for them registering for this?

After five years of working in the USA with no criminal record, probationary visa holders would get their permanent resident visas. Five years after that, they get their citizenship. Existing visa programs could continue as usual for those who want to make a better wage when they arrive in the USA.

This seems to be adding a lot of time to the solution ten years to full citizenship.

Hence, no more exploitation.

Except ofcourse, for the lower minimum wage.

This would reduce the amount of other smuggling as the network would no longer be as big.

What do you think is worth more per unit of weight? Drugs or a human being?

I'm afraid to tell you that if a human being were worth more per unit of weight, there'd be no point in smuggling them in.

These business owners would also save money as they would no longer have to bribe, I mean lobby, the legislators to promote the laws needed to maintain the current system.

Are you sure the legislators wanna get rid of this extra source of income?

Hopefully, my solution has something in it to offend everyone. Thoughts?

Ah hah, you're not stupid :p

After reading many threads on the US ‘immigration problem’, I have come up with something that could be an approach to a solution. But first, I want to clarify what exactly the problems with the current system are. As I see it, these are the main ones:

-overburdened social security net.
-exploitation of illegal underclass.
-cross border criminal networks
-porous border poses a security risk.


Solution: Eat the rich.

Give Mexico Texas!

After reading many threads on the US ‘immigration problem’, I have come up with something that could be an approach to a solution. But first, I want to clarify what exactly the problems with the current system are. As I see it, these are the main ones:

-overburdened social security net.
-exploitation of illegal underclass.
-cross border criminal networks
-porous border poses a security risk.

The last two are not a direct cause of illegal immigration. They are problems caused by, or are aided by, the established smuggling network.

Yet with all these problems, politicians have not stepped up to resolve these problems. Why not? Well there are several reasons. Some benefits to the community include:

-illegal immigrants make money to help themselves and their families out.
-companies have access to an inexpensive and skilled manual labour force

Other obstacles to change are of a more selfish nature. Many people are currently profiting from the situation. One can assume that certain business owners who employ illegal immigrants make a substantial profit. To protect their investment, they use some of their wealth to influence local politicians and government officials. Legislators are paid to pass laws that make it easier to maintain the status quo or block laws that could possibly change it. Border officials and immigration agents are sometimes paid to look the other way.

Solutions:

For those who wish to immigrate to the USA but are unable to go through the current visa program, I propose a probationary worker visa. This would be available to all non-citizens wishing to work in the USA who have no serious criminal record or medical problems. People with this visa will have a separate, lower minimum wage, and will be unable to receive any social security benefits except emergency medical treatment.

For illegal immigrants currently residing in the USA, I propose a partial amnesty: Anyone currently residing in the USA illegally must register themselves. They will not be deported, but will receive probationary worker visas as outlined above.

After five years of working in the USA with no criminal record, probationary visa holders would get their permanent resident visas. Five years after that, they get their citizenship. Existing visa programs could continue as usual for those who want to make a better wage when they arrive in the USA.

So, the immigrants would still constitute an underclass in US society, but since they would no longer illegal, they would have legal recourse when faced with intolerable situations. Hence, no more exploitation.

Since there would be much less demand for the coyote’s smuggling services, we could assume that the service would be much more limited. This would reduce the amount of other smuggling as the network would no longer be as big. Also, since the business owners who are employing the immigrants no longer need a porous border, legislators and other government officials can crack down on illegal border crossing without hurting the local economy. These business owners would also save money as they would no longer have to bribe, I mean lobby, the legislators to promote the laws needed to maintain the current system.

As for the social services, I get the feeling that many of laws currently allow access to social services regardless of citizenship. In fact, I think it is even illegal to ask in certain situations. I am going to assume that this situation is also a product of rich business owners lobbying for laws that enable the existence of an illegal underclass. By creating a legal underclass, we do away with the need for laws that enable the continued existence of this illegal underclass. Hopefully, this would create a space for more stringent laws concerning accessibility to social services.

Hopefully, my solution has something in it to offend everyone. Thoughts?

So your solution is to drive down the wages of the poorest of the poor even further by legalizing a sub minimum wage which means those now on minimum wage will be fired or not hired.

Then a second amnesty. After the first one the flood gates opened wide since it was assumed that if you came to the US and waited long enough and there was enough of you that sooner or later there would be another amnesty. A second amnesty would set the idea in stone so you may as well remove the border as there would be no reason to even attempt to have a border. Anyone who comes in gets amnesty after 15-20 years.

If the illegals are in intolerable situations in the US they have a solution.......GO HOME!

I have a better solution.

Anyone with a college degree automatically gets a green card, providing they aren't a criminal or otherwise disqualified.

Any business caught hiring illegals is fined $1000 per worker per day. The money would go toward hiring more INS agents to inspect more businesses.

Give Mexico Texas!

Meh, as long as Austin and Fredricksberg can become their own city states that would be fine by me.

Give Mexico Texas!

they already have it.

I have a better solution.

Anyone with a college degree automatically gets a green card, providing they aren't a criminal or otherwise disqualified.

Any business caught hiring illegals is fined $1000 per worker per day. The money would go toward hiring more INS agents to inspect more businesses.

I've got an even better idea. Based on the rally that they had in downtown chicago, they said that the reason that they were demanding to be made citizens, was because they couldn't adapt to mexico anymore.

O.K. I say give them amnesty but only if they can speak conversational english. if they still can't speak english after being here as long as some of them have, it's not mexico they can't adapt to but the U.S. SO GOING BACK WON'T BE A PROBLEM. :cool:

Hopefully, my solution has something in it to offend everyone. Thoughts?

The best way to end illegal immigration would be to sentence buisness owners who hire illegal immigrants to jail terms similar to those of, say, armed robbers.

Get the media to pounce on a couple of juicy examples, and you'll see results pretty quick.

It'll never happen, of course...but it would be the best way to go about it.

Oh I know! The answer to this problem is in the spoiler



A C T U A L L Y, I A M J U S T S H I T T I N G Y O U. H A V E A N I C E D A Y! : F L U F F L E :

abolish borders and citizenship and immigration just become a demographic trend.

The best way to end illegal immigration would be to sentence buisness owners who hire illegal immigrants to jail terms similar to those of, say, armed robbers.

Get the media to pounce on a couple of juicy examples, and you'll see results pretty quick.

It'll never happen, of course...but it would be the best way to go about it.

Hit them where it really hurts; in the wallet. Make each individual instance of an improperly documented employee a $500,000 fine against the employer. Enough instances or a pattern of instances over time can lead to federal racketeering charges. Ooh! Or tax evasion! You don't mess with the IRS! :)

Hit them where it really hurts; in the wallet. Make each individual instance of an improperly documented employee a $500,000 fine against the employer. Enough instances or a pattern of instances over time can lead to federal racketeering charges. Ooh! Or tax evasion! You don't mess with the IRS! :)

That would probably work just as well, but I'd rather see a few in prison next to armed thieves and crack dealers.

It'd get the rest scrambling to fix their act a lot quicker, I'd wager.

or we could publically torture and ultimately kill anyone who hires and illegal immigrant and their entire families. you watch a few hours of some texas meat packers children being slowly torn apart and suddenly it doesn't seem so appealing to head down to home depot to find a couple of guys to repave the old driveway.

Well, one way we can give quick citizenship in the US is to follow the French Foreign Legion model. If you serve 5 years of honorable service in the Foreign Legion, you are granted French citizenship. Of course, the FFL has been known to be one of the toughest fighting forces (I'm talking about the soldiers, not the French politics).

The US should adopt a US Foreign Legion, and do the same thing. I think it's a shame that non-US citizens have died in Iraq and Afghanistan as members of the US Military, and their next of kin are not entitled to citizenship. And like the French do with the FFL, send them wherever, after all, they are not French people (yet).

On a humorous note, we can always hire all the former East German Border Guards, and have them build an iron curtain on the border. After all, how many people got across the iron curtain over the years; compare to how many come across the US/Mexico border daily? The only problem is that we would have to train the former East German Border Guards to "look" outside of the country, and to keep people from coming in, not from going out.

On an even funnier note, how about we cover the entire border with trip wires, land mines (all sorts), automated shotguns and machine guns, trained attack dogs, booby traps, fire pits, alligator filled moats, rattler filled trenches, all sort of sensors and cameras. Then we can call it "Who Wants To Be A Citizen". Whomever can make it across the border without getting killed gets to stay. The best part is that we can put it on Pay-per-View, and it will pay for itself. If you don't think it will, look at how much money "wrasslin" makes every year on PPV.

Any way, just a few thoughts.

Y'all be safe out there.

Vic

I think instead of targeting the issue at the immigrants we should crack down on businesses that hire them. Don't just hold them legally accountable, hold them financially accountable by not giving them any money. Everyone knows that's what businesses worry about more anyway. Make them realize it's not worth their while to hire someone who shouldn't be in the country. Of course that also means you'll probably have to go buy what you need at somewhere that'll charge more for it, but what's more important - paying less money up front, or knowing you'll have a job in the future so you can continue to afford what you need?

On a humorous note, we can always hire all the former East German Border Guards, and have them build an iron curtain on the border. After all, how many people got across the iron curtain over the years; compare to how many come across the US/Mexico border daily? The only problem is that we would have to train the former East German Border Guards to "look" outside of the country, and to keep people from coming in, not from going out.



Nah, just tell them they work for Mexico ;)

Maybe Americans should pay a fair price for ‘Mexican’ products.

Now, I’m not blaming US of A. Here in Europe we do the same stuff. We pay peanuts for our African fruits, Asian t-shirts and stuff (and so is US of A).

If ‘we’ started to pay fair prices, then the people in the south could develop their own healthy economy and then there is less need for immigration.

In Europe, people earn about 1500$ each month. In some African countries, people earn 200$ (and less) each YEAR.

If we don't divide our richness, they will come and get it.

What would YOU do, if you were a poor African or Mexican and would have the opportunity to have a better life? Stay where you are and suffer? Sure...

Some solutions for U.S. immigration problems not necessarily in order of priority:
1. Huge increase in numbers of border patrol.
2. A dramatic raise in minimum wage.
3. Eliminate all exemptions from minimum wage.
4. If the parents aren’t citizens of the U.S. their children aren’t either.
5. No government services for illegal aliens.
6. Heavy fines for first and second time employers of illegal immigrants.
7. Repeat offenders who hire illegal immigrants to be labeled felons serving mandatory jail time and loss of all property.

-overburdened social security net.
-exploitation of illegal underclass.
-cross border criminal networks
-porous border poses a security risk.


I would add

-overburdened criminal justice system
-overburdened social services
-higher unemployment rate among unskilled legal residents/citizens


Solutions:

For those who wish to immigrate to the USA but are unable to go through the current visa program, I propose a probationary worker visa. This would be available to all non-citizens wishing to work in the USA who have no serious criminal record or medical problems. People with this visa will have a separate, lower minimum wage, and will be unable to receive any social security benefits except emergency medical treatment.

For illegal immigrants currently residing in the USA, I propose a partial amnesty: Anyone currently residing in the USA illegally must register themselves. They will not be deported, but will receive probationary worker visas as outlined above.


You're to be commended for looking for a fair solution, but I think this one needs more refining. The above has no incentives for people to participate in the program nor does it outline any penalties for failure to do so. At this point, people who are here illegally would look at this system and ask themselves "how do I gain by compliance?" Also consider that many of these people are extremely distrustful of Government and are reluctant to step forward out of fear of imprisonment or deportation (despite the fact that neither is likely in the current state of things.)

And I'd ask: Would the probationary visa be guaranteed, assuming no serious criminal history? Would an individual here on a probationary visa be required to pay taxes? Social Security? Medicare? Would they gain benefits? Could they get a driver's license? "Probationary Visa" implies a possibility that it won't become a permanent resident visa. What happens then?


After five years of working in the USA with no criminal record, probationary visa holders would get their permanent resident visas. Five years after that, they get their citizenship. Existing visa programs could continue as usual for those who want to make a better wage when they arrive in the USA.


It citizenship automatic, or would they be required to follow a similar process as th eone we currently have? Would this new system replace the old citizenship system?


So, the immigrants would still constitute an underclass in US society, but since they would no longer illegal, they would have legal recourse when faced with intolerable situations. Hence, no more exploitation.

Since there would be much less demand for the coyote’s smuggling services, we could assume that the service would be much more limited. This would reduce the amount of other smuggling as the network would no longer be as big. Also, since the business owners who are employing the immigrants no longer need a porous border, legislators and other government officials can crack down on illegal border crossing without hurting the local economy. These business owners would also save money as they would no longer have to bribe, I mean lobby, the legislators to promote the laws needed to maintain the current system.


I don't think the demand would decrease. Many people who come to the US illegally are also doing so without the permission of their home Government which means that without that, they still have to cross illegally. Would they be elligible for a probationary visa afterward? If so, then you may as well lose the border guards right now, becaue the laws would no longer be enforced anyway.


As for the social services, I get the feeling that many of laws currently allow access to social services regardless of citizenship. In fact, I think it is even illegal to ask in certain situations. I am going to assume that this situation is also a product of rich business owners lobbying for laws that enable the existence of an illegal underclass. By creating a legal underclass, we do away with the need for laws that enable the continued existence of this illegal underclass. Hopefully, this would create a space for more stringent laws concerning accessibility to social services.


Details?


Hopefully, my solution has something in it to offend everyone. Thoughts?

What about preventing additional illegal border crossings? What about illegals who DO have a serious criminal history? How would you enforce the new system? How do the illegals benefit from compliance? How does the overburdened system benefit from compliance?

Why the lower minimum wage? what would be the advantage it does not seem to reduce any of your listed problems and has the potential to adding to the first one of exploitation (while not completely)

The lower minimum wage is a way to get those who profit from the existing situation to accept the new situation. To put it bluntly, it's a big bribe for the capitalists who are currently making huge profits off the backs of illegals. If we can't get their support, then they're going to use their considerable power to block any attempt to block any attempt to reforming the system.

This would be a step but if they HAPPEN to be making current minimum wage what would be the benefit for them registering for this?

They would have legal recourse available to them if they were a victim of a crime. Those illegals who currently enjoy a wage at or above minimum wage musr already have some deal with their employer. My proposed solution would not affect such a deal.

This seems to be adding a lot of time to the solution ten years to full citizenship.

The ten years is a bit arbitrary. The idea is that if they keep their records clean, they get to enjoy all the rights of citizenship, which is what the really want. Some people feel they should never get it. Some feel they should receive it right away. I'll leave it to the legislators to debate how much time is required to prove yourself.

The problem is not the immigrants - it is the government. Work Visas ARE probationary yet nearly impossible to get. If the government were able to act efficiently and promptly then immigration law compliance wouldn't be a problem - LOL - If they were efficient and prompt then they wouldn't be government!

My solution addresses that. A probationary worker's visa would be as simple as filling out a form, and waiting for mexico to process the criminal background check. If the Mexican governemnt simply allowed the USA to access their criminal database, it could take less than a few minutes.

Except ofcourse, for the lower minimum wage.

The lower minimum wage is based on the average pay that an illegal immigrant currently receives. This part of their situation would remain unchanged. However, they would now have access to legal resources should they be the victims of a crime, or are exploited by their employer. It also means that a worker can quit his job and go look for a new one without the worry of being deported.

What do you think is worth more per unit of weight? Drugs or a human being?

I'm afraid to tell you that if a human being were worth more per unit of weight, there'd be no point in smuggling them in.

Since the Mexicans wishing to work in the USA would no longer need the smuggler's services, we would see a decrease in demand for their services. The smugglers wouldn't make any money, so they would do other things instead. Like smuggle drugs. So you beef up border security. This is easy to do now that the rich and powerful are no longer lobbying against such measures.

Are you sure the legislators wanna get rid of this extra source of income?

That's what I was looking for, a flaw in my thinking. Thanks. I have to roll this around in my head until I find how to make it fit.

So your solution is to drive down the wages of the poorest of the poor even further by legalizing a sub minimum wage which means those now on minimum wage will be fired or not hired.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that this is not already happening with the current situation.

Then a second amnesty. After the first one the flood gates opened wide since it was assumed that if you came to the US and waited long enough and there was enough of you that sooner or later there would be another amnesty. A second amnesty would set the idea in stone so you may as well remove the border as there would be no reason to even attempt to have a border. Anyone who comes in gets amnesty after 15-20 years.

Amnesties are simply an acceptance of the cross border migration that has been occurring for hundreds of years. I'm sorry if the idea bothers you, but closing your eyes to the truth will not provide solutions.

I have a better solution.

Anyone with a college degree automatically gets a green card, providing they aren't a criminal or otherwise disqualified.

Any business caught hiring illegals is fined $1000 per worker per day. The money would go toward hiring more INS agents to inspect more businesses.

The industries that currently use illegal labour need strong backs, not college brains. Moreover, you would be making the brain drain of Mexico even worse, thereby reducing your chances of the only viable long term solution: a Mexican economy that can provide the same opportunities for Mexicans as the USian economy.

The businesses you plan to target have already paid the legislators to shoot your bill down before it becomes a law. Please try to keep in mind how capitalist democracies work.

Your solution is only better to you. It is not practical or realistic.

I've got an even better idea. Based on the rally that they had in downtown chicago, they said that the reason that they were demanding to be made citizens, was because they couldn't adapt to mexico anymore.

O.K. I say give them amnesty but only if they can speak conversational english. if they still can't speak english after being here as long as some of them have, it's not mexico they can't adapt to but the U.S. SO GOING BACK WON'T BE A PROBLEM. :cool:

No problem. Most mexicans living in Mexico have some sort of ability to speak conversational english. So do most illegals. Mind you, they already speak a language native to the USA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_in_the_United_States#History)

The best way to end illegal immigration would be to sentence buisness owners who hire illegal immigrants to jail terms similar to those of, say, armed robbers.

Get the media to pounce on a couple of juicy examples, and you'll see results pretty quick.

It'll never happen, of course...but it would be the best way to go about it.

You see, my plan is not the best way to go about it, but is the most likely to happen from what I see.

abolish borders and citizenship and immigration just become a demographic trend.

I'm trying to discuss a realistic solution.

Solutions:

For those who wish to immigrate to the USA but are unable to go through the current visa program, I propose a probationary worker visa. This would be available to all non-citizens wishing to work in the USA who have no serious criminal record or medical problems. People with this visa will have a separate, lower minimum wage, and will be unable to receive any social security benefits except emergency medical treatment.

No. I propose a background check period, during which a person has a probationary visa. They must sign a sworn statement that they intend to become US citizens if the check is successful. During this time, they get a Social Security number, and can do everything a citizen can do except vote.

Once they pass the check, which includes proof that they are employed, they are sworn in as US citizens, and must permanently renounce their previous citizenship.

For illegal immigrants currently residing in the USA, I propose a partial amnesty: Anyone currently residing in the USA illegally must register themselves. They will not be deported, but will receive probationary worker visas as outlined above.

See my previous idea. If they don't want to become US citizens, send them home.

After five years of working in the USA with no criminal record, probationary visa holders would get their permanent resident visas. Five years after that, they get their citizenship. Existing visa programs could continue as usual for those who want to make a better wage when they arrive in the USA.

Five years is too long. Many have been here longer already.

So, the immigrants would still constitute an underclass in US society, but since they would no longer illegal, they would have legal recourse when faced with intolerable situations. Hence, no more exploitation.

Purposefully making an underclass is wrong.

Since there would be much less demand for the coyote’s smuggling services, we could assume that the service would be much more limited. This would reduce the amount of other smuggling as the network would no longer be as big. Also, since the business owners who are employing the immigrants no longer need a porous border, legislators and other government officials can crack down on illegal border crossing without hurting the local economy. These business owners would also save money as they would no longer have to bribe, I mean lobby, the legislators to promote the laws needed to maintain the current system.

As for the social services, I get the feeling that many of laws currently allow access to social services regardless of citizenship. In fact, I think it is even illegal to ask in certain situations. I am going to assume that this situation is also a product of rich business owners lobbying for laws that enable the existence of an illegal underclass. By creating a legal underclass, we do away with the need for laws that enable the continued existence of this illegal underclass. Hopefully, this would create a space for more stringent laws concerning accessibility to social services.

Hopefully, my solution has something in it to offend everyone. Thoughts?

If we made it easy to become a US citizen, there would be no smuggling. People would walk to a border station, fill out a form, and come in.

Give Mexico Texas!

Reminds me of a show I saw when flipping through channels a couple of days ago-This teenager who lives in the White House accidentally gives Vladimir Putin (who is portrayed by some other guy) the deed to Alaska. This is a kiddie show, so it's solved by the teenager beating Vlad in the equivalent to DDR, winning both Air Force One back, which had been wagered, and Alaska.

There's another part to the illegal immigration issue. If problems are so bad in someone's country that they would rather live 10 in a room and make basically nothing just to be away from it, what favor are we doing in allowing them to come here and prop up their country with our dollars? If we force them to stay in Mexico (or the other South American countries the illegals come from), isn't there much better odds they will rise up against their governments and fix the problems themselves? By letting them dodge these issues, we're really just allowing them to keep their own country just barely up, instead of letting it sink and the problems to start to get fixed.

So, the immigrants would still constitute an underclass in US society, but since they would no longer illegal, they would have legal recourse when faced with intolerable situations. Hence, no more exploitation.Bwahahaha! This paragraph is hilarious. I suggest you look up the meaning of the words 'underclass' and 'exploit'.

Well, one way we can give quick citizenship in the US is to follow the French Foreign Legion model. ...Vic

This could also be a path. Especially now, with the current war.

Maybe Americans should pay a fair price for ‘Mexican’ products....What would YOU do, if you were a poor African or Mexican and would have the opportunity to have a better life? Stay where you are and suffer? Sure...

Yes, fair trade practices work and are definitely part of the solution to helping the local economies of developing countries. The ideal long term solution is to have robust economies all over the world, and easy and secure movement throughout the world as well. Fair trade encourages that.

I think instead of targeting the issue at the immigrants we should crack down on businesses that hire them. Don't just hold them legally accountable, hold them financially accountable by not giving them any money. Everyone knows that's what businesses worry about more anyway. Make them realize it's not worth their while to hire someone who shouldn't be in the country. Of course that also means you'll probably have to go buy what you need at somewhere that'll charge more for it, but what's more important - paying less money up front, or knowing you'll have a job in the future so you can continue to afford what you need?

While I agree that boycotting businesses that emplot illegal labour is a useful tactic, it will only change the situation if a lot of people are doing it, and is practiced in combination with other economic practices like pruchasing fair trade products.

I would add

-overburdened criminal justice system
-overburdened social services
-higher unemployment rate among unskilled legal residents/citizens

I think that my program would have some indirect effects on crime, as illegals wouldn't be so tempted into it if they knew they could have full citizenship by following the law.

On the issue of overburdened social services, I would simply make access to social services dependent on having a green card or proof of citizenship. Here in Canada, you have to show your provincial health care card to get any social services. If an illegal alien asks for welfare, he gets deported. If he asks for free medical care, he gets patched up and deported. If he tries to get a tax return or rebate, he gets deported. Education? Driver's license? Any license? That's right. Deported.

According to previous threads, this is not the case in the USA. Why not? My guess is that corporations wishing to employ illegals want them to be able to stay and be healthy enough to work, and so they pay legislators to pass laws that allow for such a system. By giving the illegals a legal status, we create such a system, but not at the expense of the social security net. A person can live for five years with only emergency medical care as their social security net. They can also purchase additional security such as medical insurance, if they so desire.

You're to be commended for looking for a fair solution, but I think this one needs more refining. The above has no incentives for people to participate in the program nor does it outline any penalties for failure to do so. At this point, people who are here illegally would look at this system and ask themselves "how do I gain by compliance?" Also consider that many of these people are extremely distrustful of Government and are reluctant to step forward out of fear of imprisonment or deportation (despite the fact that neither is likely in the current state of things.)

Thanks, the OP was simply a condensed outline of an idea. I didn't think people would read something longer.

Incentives: legal status! You get paid the same as before, but now you can call the cops when the boss tries to rape you, or your house gets broken into. In five years, you can get a decent wage, social security benefits, and all the other benefits of a green card. In ten years you get full citizenship. That means you can bring your ailing mother to get decent treatment, vote, and bitch about immigrants.

Penalties: Jail time and deportation.

And I'd ask: Would the probationary visa be guaranteed, assuming no serious criminal history? Would an individual here on a probationary visa be required to pay taxes? Social Security? Medicare? Would they gain benefits? Could they get a driver's license? "Probationary Visa" implies a possibility that it won't become a permanent resident visa. What happens then?

Yes, it would be guaranteed. If they made enough money, they would have to pay income tax. Sales tax would have to be paid at point of purchase. Property taxes would have to be paid by those who manage to buy land. If they have a large enough paycheck, the usual deductions for social security, etc., would apply. They would not receive benefits for the first five years. The green card is guaranteed to those who have no serious run-ins with the law during the five year probationary term. Those who get arrested for something serious get jail time and deportation. If they don't want deportation, they can try again for another five years.

It citizenship automatic, or would they be required to follow a similar process as th eone we currently have? Would this new system replace the old citizenship system?

I'm not so sure. When I originally thought this out, I thought it would be a separate track to citizenship, but if the step from permanent resident (this is what the green card is, right?) to citizenship is easy, I would just make the people who got their green card through my probationary system do it the old way too.

It would definitley not replace the old system. It would be another path.

I don't think the demand would decrease. Many people who come to the US illegally are also doing so without the permission of their home Government which means that without that, they still have to cross illegally. Would they be elligible for a probationary visa afterward? If so, then you may as well lose the border guards right now, becaue the laws would no longer be enforced anyway.

As far as I am aware, the Mexican government receives an amazing amount of money from Mexicans living in the USA. Second highest source of foreign income, after oil. The Mexican government does everything it can to relocate Mexicans to the USA.

Details?

See above.

What about preventing additional illegal border crossings? What about illegals who DO have a serious criminal history? How would you enforce the new system? How do the illegals benefit from compliance? How does the overburdened system benefit from compliance?

Again, my guess is that corporations wishing to employ illegals want them to be able to cross the border, and so they pay legislators to pass laws that allow for such a porous border, or block propositions that would strengthen the border. If we create a legal path for those who would otherwise be illegals, these corporations would no longer invest in such legislation. Then the government can do what it should have been doing all along: securing the border.

Illegals that do have a criminal record will not be allowed in. I would assume that this would be the only clientele left for the coyotes. The increased border security should make their lives difficult enough that cross border gangs and crime would be reduced or at least kept at the same levels they are now.

I would enforce the system the same way the current one is beinf enforced, exceppt now the INS officers (or whoever it is now) don't have to deal with millions of illegals. They only have to deal with a few hundreds or thousands.

I am not sure what you are asking with your last two questions.

No. I propose a background check period, during which a person has a probationary visa. They must sign a sworn statement that they intend to become US citizens if the check is successful. During this time, they get a Social Security number, and can do everything a citizen can do except vote....If we made it easy to become a US citizen, there would be no smuggling. People would walk to a border station, fill out a form, and come in.

This is not a viable solution. It does not address the current economic need for an underpaid labour force, nor does it address the reality of the current political situation.

This is not a viable solution. It does not address the current economic need for an underpaid labour force, nor does it address the reality of the current political situation.

You could have said that prior to the US Civil War, and it would have been just as wrong then as it is now.

There's another part to the illegal immigration issue. If problems are so bad in someone's country that they would rather live 10 in a room and make basically nothing just to be away from it, what favor are we doing in allowing them to come here and prop up their country with our dollars? If we force them to stay in Mexico (or the other South American countries the illegals come from), isn't there much better odds they will rise up against their governments and fix the problems themselves? By letting them dodge these issues, we're really just allowing them to keep their own country just barely up, instead of letting it sink and the problems to start to get fixed.

The long term solutions for the developing economies of Latin America will not be found in isolationism. Globalisation is here whether we like it or not.

Bwahahaha! This paragraph is hilarious. I suggest you look up the meaning of the words 'underclass' and 'exploit'.

The situation would be far better than their current situation. Allow me to rephrase the paragraph you found so humourous:

"So, the immigrants would still constitute an underclass in US society, but since they would no longer illegal, they would have legal recourse when faced with intolerable situations. Hence, far less exploitation."

I apologise for using an absolute term when I should have used a relative term.

You could have said that prior to the US Civil War, and it would have been just as wrong then as it is now.

I am trying to find a realistic solution. Not one that appeals to your sense of right and wrong. If you have any practical criticisms of my proposal, I would like to hear them.

Learn some basic economics – please, not only for your own benefit but for the rest of our sakes as well (this is not limited to immigration debates, but just a statement in general - a constituency split by irrational and emotive positions leads to inaction). I am getting tired of seeing ludicrous proposals of half-million dollar fines and prison sentences for the dastardly deed of hiring someone for a job.

No realistic solutions can be had because voters are too ignorant or otherwise incapable of understanding the implications of their policy positions. What makes a few good soundbites or panders to their innate bias is what gets pursued. Why would a politician risk saying something that can be twisted by an opponent to make him look bad when the possible benefit to his career prospect is negligible?


There is lax enforcement for 3 basic reasons:
Economic needs – the US is very short on workers and needs more people. Those that bitch about unemployment are being very myopic and are unwilling to relocate – much of the country is facing a significant labor shortage.

Discrimination – tracking down illegals and deporting them is very difficult without infringing upon basic rights of legal residents. There would be a major uproar if police were constantly demanding to see identification from people because they look like a foreigner.

Health and Safety – illegals are allowed basic services on humanitarian grounds. Were illegals unable to get basic medical care and food assistance, there would be a section of society which, even if not caring for their welfare, would then put the rest of the population at risk from their being breeding grounds for contagious diseases and an increased likelihood of turning to violent crime in desperation.


Illegal residents can be split into two basic wage groups – some are paid in cash, and some receive payroll checks.

Those paid in cash do vary, but in most parts of the country they receive better than minimum wage as employers are just avoiding payroll regulation and expenses, not minimum wage laws (the actual cost, in terms of both money and compliance costs, of a legal wage is considerably more than if paying in cash). According to a 2004 study of day laborers in the DC area, they have a mean reserve wage of over $10/hr (that means they wont work for less than that). Personal experience is that they earn around $16/hr if they are known to have basic competence.

The majority (admittedly based on what is probably a highly inaccurate estimate) of illegal residents are paid just like legal residents – they give fake social security numbers and documentation to employers. Placing massive fines on employers for hiring illegals will cause them to react by refusing to hire anyone based solely on their looking or sounding foreign (discrimination lawsuits anyone?). It puts a significant burden on both employers and employees to have a massive fine on an improper hire – employers will panic and react by not hiring, and employees will have significant difficulty convincing an employer that they are safe to hire (excepting those that look and sound like they grew up in the US).

If the US did not have such a significant labor shortage, there would be no need for illegal immigrants. They fill a very necessary part of the economy - without immigrant labor huge parts of the economy will suffer massive labor shortages, which affects our quality of life. Peaches are one example – the best tasting peaches are too delicate to be harvested by machine and must be picked by hand. Unable to get enough migrant workers, many farmers are looking at changing over to growing a much hardier peach that, while considerably less tasty, is able to be harvested by machine. A lack of immigrants is hurting my quality of life! ;) Seriously though, if we had enough legal workers, there wouldn’t be a desire for illegals.

One of the strongest arguments against immigration is that immigrants cost the US a lot of money in public services. The simple solution is to either pay less in social services, take more from the immigrants, or both. Since most people would object to cutting social services and to raising taxes, immigrants themselves must therefore be of a much higher caliber than what is currently accepted to raise the amount they pay in taxes to compensate for expenditures.

We could do that by actually implementing a point system like ever other country in the world and finally do away with the “wretched refuse” because that’s exactly what we get. Open immigration policies welcoming ignorant and impoverished people works fantastically in a capitalist economy without massive social expenditures – with high social spending, a couple million unskilled illiterates quickly drain the coffers.

My personal preference is for doing both.

Social benefits should be drastically cut or completely scrapped (when you have to approve a couple hundred dollars of food stamps to a family that knows how to game the system, but have to turn away people who truly need the help, you know in your bones that government should not be in the business of charity). Charitable organizations should be encouraged – soup kitchens, free clinics, homeless shelters, etc. should all be run as charities and not as bureaucratic morasses. There are many ways to encourage such organizations without turning them into government offices run by civil servants (all props to the idealism behind them, but effectiveness is not measured by intent). Obviously the transition would be difficult – getting people to donate to charitable causes while everyone still pays massive taxes for the government to take care of it will be tricky, but eliminating current services while waiting for a charity driven system to build wouldn’t be acceptable.

Immigration should be a very easy process screening applicants. Those with advanced educations get put at the front of the queue, bonus points if you have family that are residents and speak English. The number cap on immigrants should be completely eliminated and instead replaced with adjusting the point requirement to throttle the immigration.

Illegals should not be strongly pursued, but all services will be denied to them and, if arrested, will be deported immediately. If they can find a way to work and live, they are obviously filling a need in the economy, but with increased legal immigration that shouldn’t be such a problem.

Unfortunately the implications of immigration are extensive, which is why it is still a touchy subject – honest discussion of it doesn’t fit into soundbite format and is therefore not realistically debated by politicians.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that this is not already happening with the current situation.

Amnesties are simply an acceptance of the cross border migration that has been occurring for hundreds of years. I'm sorry if the idea bothers you, but closing your eyes to the truth will not provide solutions.

The industries that currently use illegal labour need strong backs, not college brains. Moreover, you would be making the brain drain of Mexico even worse, thereby reducing your chances of the only viable long term solution: a Mexican economy that can provide the same opportunities for Mexicans as the USian economy.

The businesses you plan to target have already paid the legislators to shoot your bill down before it becomes a law. Please try to keep in mind how capitalist democracies work.

Your solution is only better to you. It is not practical or realistic.



So the cost of labor is being driven down under the current situation---Let's make it worse for the poorest of the poor? You need to rename yourself.

Amnesty happened and the great influx happened because "conservative" politicians have decided that the rich get richer and the poor become slaves. Every action the last 27 years was toward that end.

The US needs brains. That is where the future is. The nation with the most brains will win. The nation with strong backs will lose.

The industries that need backs used to pay for them. In 1980 the slaughtering house in Dakota City NE paid $17/hr starting pay + benefits. They had no trouble getting citizen strong backs. Today that same plant pays $9/hr with no benefits. Where do you think they get those backs?

Nearly every agricultural task has a machine that will do it. In 1980 farmers were investing in those machines because it was cheaper than a strong back. Today few have those machines because slave wages offset the cost.

In the end votes mean more than money. If the people want to solve the problem it will be solved over the bribes. For 27 years the people have chosen to worry about things like abortion and gay marriage (neither of which the government has any intention of doing anything about) instead of their own well being.

Learn some basic economics – please, not only for your own benefit but for the rest of our sakes as well (this is not limited to immigration debates, but just a statement in general - a constituency split by irrational and emotive positions leads to inaction). ...Unfortunately the implications of immigration are extensive, which is why it is still a touchy subject – honest discussion of it doesn’t fit into soundbite format and is therefore not realistically debated by politicians.

Perhaps you could condense the parts of your post that you feel most directly impact on my proposal. I am somewhat confused as to how your post deals with the OP, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.

So the cost of labor is being driven down under the current situation---Let's make it worse for the poorest of the poor? You need to rename yourself.

I am trying to come up with a proposal to change the current situation. The cost of labour is going down now because of the current situation. My changes would not make it any worse.

Amnesty happened and the great influx happened because "conservative" politicians have decided that the rich get richer and the poor become slaves. Every action the last 27 years was toward that end.

Nice piece of diatribe. How does this reflect on my proposal?

The US needs brains. That is where the future is. The nation with the most brains will win. The nation with strong backs will lose.

I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously. A strong economy is a diverse one. A diverse economy needs varied skill sets. The US will need both.

The industries that need backs used to pay for them. In 1980 the slaughtering house in Dakota City NE paid $17/hr starting pay + benefits. They had no trouble getting citizen strong backs. Today that same plant pays $9/hr with no benefits. Where do you think they get those backs?

Source?

Nearly every agricultural task has a machine that will do it. In 1980 farmers were investing in those machines because it was cheaper than a strong back. Today few have those machines because slave wages offset the cost.

Souce?

In the end votes mean more than money. If the people want to solve the problem it will be solved over the bribes. For 27 years the people have chosen to worry about things like abortion and gay marriage (neither of which the government has any intention of doing anything about) instead of their own well being.

I have no clue what you are trying to say here.

Learn some basic economics – please, not only for your own benefit but for the rest of our sakes as well (this is not limited to immigration debates, but just a statement in general - a constituency split by irrational and emotive positions leads to inaction). I am getting tired of seeing ludicrous proposals of half-million dollar fines and prison sentences for the dastardly deed of hiring someone for a job.
Yeah. Let's just totally absolve employers from any responsibility.

No realistic solutions can be had because voters are too ignorant or otherwise incapable of understanding the implications of their policy positions.
Let's just do away with this democracy thing so that smart people like you can run things as the general population is too ignorant.



There is lax enforcement for 3 basic reasons:
Economic needs – the US is very short on workers and needs more people. Those that bitch about unemployment are being very myopic and are unwilling to relocate – much of the country is facing a significant labor shortage.
We still have a significant unemployment rate. There's no labor shortage. Just a shortage of U.S. citizens willing to work for the substandard wages and conditions many U.S employers wish to impose upon their workers. That's why they want illegal immigrants in the first place, to lower their labor costs, make it difficult to maintain safe and adequate workplace conditions and to raise their own profit margin at the expense of those workers.

Discrimination – tracking down illegals and deporting them is very difficult without infringing upon basic rights of legal residents. There would be a major uproar if police were constantly demanding to see identification from people because they look like a foreigner.
Our government has failed to live up to it's responsibility to protect the sovereignty of this country and it's gonna be a bitch to fix it now. But fix it we must.

Health and Safety – illegals are allowed basic services on humanitarian grounds. Were illegals unable to get basic medical care and food assistance, there would be a section of society which, even if not caring for their welfare, would then put the rest of the population at risk from their being breeding grounds for contagious diseases and an increased likelihood of turning to violent crime in desperation.
* see reply above


Those paid in cash do vary, but in most parts of the country they receive better than minimum wage as employers are just avoiding payroll regulation and expenses, not minimum wage laws (the actual cost, in terms of both money and compliance costs, of a legal wage is considerably more than if paying in cash). According to a 2004 study of day laborers in the DC area, they have a mean reserve wage of over $10/hr (that means they wont work for less than that). Personal experience is that they earn around $16/hr if they are known to have basic competence.
My personal experience around here is that contractors charge $25/day for each worker. The contractor takes a cut out of that of course.

The majority (admittedly based on what is probably a highly inaccurate estimate) of illegal residents are paid just like legal residents – they give fake social security numbers and documentation to employers. Placing massive fines on employers for hiring illegals will cause them to react by refusing to hire anyone based solely on their looking or sounding foreign (discrimination lawsuits anyone?). It puts a significant burden on both employers and employees to have a massive fine on an improper hire – employers will panic and react by not hiring, and employees will have significant difficulty convincing an employer that they are safe to hire (excepting those that look and sound like they grew up in the US).
Good excuse to keep hiring those illegals isn't it?

If the US did not have such a significant labor shortage, there would be no need for illegal immigrants. They fill a very necessary part of the economy - without immigrant labor huge parts of the economy will suffer massive labor shortages, which affects our quality of life. Peaches are one example – the best tasting peaches are too delicate to be harvested by machine and must be picked by hand. Unable to get enough migrant workers, many farmers are looking at changing over to growing a much hardier peach that, while considerably less tasty, is able to be harvested by machine. A lack of immigrants is hurting my quality of life! ;) Seriously though, if we had enough legal workers, there wouldn’t be a desire for illegals.
When I was a kid we used to travel all over doing farm work. We worked our asses off. We were put out off work because illegals would would work for a lot less and live in crowded, non-sanitary conditions where the employers could keep an eye on them, Period, end of story.





Social benefits should be drastically cut or completely scrapped (when you have to approve a couple hundred dollars of food stamps to a family that knows how to game the system, but have to turn away people who truly need the help, you know in your bones that government should not be in the business of charity). Charitable organizations should be encouraged – soup kitchens, free clinics, homeless shelters, etc. should all be run as charities and not as bureaucratic morasses. There are many ways to encourage such organizations without turning them into government offices run by civil servants (all props to the idealism behind them, but effectiveness is not measured by intent). Obviously the transition would be difficult – getting people to donate to charitable causes while everyone still pays massive taxes for the government to take care of it will be tricky, but eliminating current services while waiting for a charity driven system to build wouldn’t be acceptable.
The conservative agenda is to do away with all public services. We already know this.



Illegals should not be strongly pursued,
Of course not. We don't actually want to curtail the supply of cheap, illegal labor, now do we?

Yeah. Let's just totally absolve employers from any responsibility.
Responsibility for what? Do you seriously think an employer should have to do significant background checks akin to getting a government security clearance before hiring an employee? If the result is a serious fine and a prison sentence, it will seriously cripple the economy as employers are scared witless of actually hiring someone.

Immigrants already face a lot of problems with discrimination because employers are worried about hiring someone who might be illegal. Sure, there are a lot of other companies that have no problem with it, but a meat packing plant is a far cry from the sum total of American employment opportunities. Employers currently ask for a social security card and drivers license - what more do you want them to do?

Perhaps we should just tell employers to not hire anyone with an accent?

Let's just do away with this democracy thing so that smart people like you can run things as the general population is too ignorant.
Yeah, I think that might work. :P
You cannot seriously think that the US electorate is highly informed on what issues are at hand and sufficiently well educated to understand the implications thereof.

The best we can hope for is that the stupid will choose completely at random so the marginal vote is an educated one. Unfortunately there is too much bias in the general population which skews the results - few politicians have the gravitas to go against the bias of the ignorant masses. As a result, the smart politician tends to go for meaningless measures which placate the electorate, but accomplish nothing.

We still have a significant unemployment rate. There's no labor shortage. Just a shortage of U.S. citizens willing to work for the substandard wages and conditions many U.S employers wish to impose upon their workers. That's why they want illegal immigrants in the first place, to lower their labor costs, make it difficult to maintain safe and adequate workplace conditions and to raise their own profit margin at the expense of those workers.
The US unemployment rate is roughly at what is referred to as the 'natural' rate of unemployment. This signifies the churn of the labor market - people who are temporarily unemployed while looking for a particular type of employment or in a specific location.

The only way to completely eliminate unemployment is to mandate jobs to people and only allow them to change jobs if they already have another. Obviously this is not acceptable, therefore there will always be unemployment.

There is a significant labor shortage as many companies cannot find willing workers. The US is a big place - your local labor market might not be underserved, but nation wide there is a shortage of labor. This is most especially felt in the need for skilled labor, but even unskilled labor is short.

If you are willing to look out of your small neighborhood, and willing to be flexible on what job you will take, there are tons of jobs available.

As far as what wages employers are willing to pay, by what metric are you calling it substandard? Employers are willing to pay what the job is worth - it is ludicrous to expect a janitor to be paid $30/hr. Just because someone want to sit on their ass and get paid a lot of money, and no employer is seeking them out specifically to bang on their door, does not mean there is a glut of labor.


Our government has failed to live up to it's responsibility to protect the sovereignty of this country and it's gonna be a bitch to fix it now. But fix it we must.
So essentially you think the police should be going around harassing anyone who looks foreign and demanding they show their papers?

My personal experience around here is that contractors charge $25/day for each worker. The contractor takes a cut out of that of course.
If there were such a glut of labor as you suggest, work would be cheap. Labor being expensive simply reinforces my statement of their being a labor shortage. Supply and demand - supply curves are upward sloping (throw in the handful of conditionals economist are prone to giving, which laymen grossly misinterpret).

Good excuse to keep hiring those illegals isn't it?
The point is that employers are blind to hiring legal and illegal workers. If an illegal worker is going to cost just as much as a legal one, there is no incentive to hire an illegal. Any kvetching about poor working conditions is irrelevant because employers will have a mixture of workers and not pure illegals (excepting what amounts to slave labor, to which they are not paying payroll taxes on anyway). Thus, that illegals have payroll taxes deducted is simply a testament to employers attempting to follow the law.

When I was a kid we used to travel all over doing farm work. We worked our asses off. We were put out off work because illegals would would work for a lot less and live in crowded, non-sanitary conditions where the employers could keep an eye on them, Period, end of story.
Funny, in my experience farm workers are paid well and we even provided them with free food (it wasnt crap, we ate the exact same food), yet we always had difficulty finding workers (excepting those that didnt actually work but just stood around and complained when we switched to paying by what each worker picked instead of an hourly rate).

Anecdotal evidence is worthless.

The conservative agenda is to do away with all public services. We already know this.
If it isnt in the constitution, it isnt the job of the federal government.

Of course not. We don't actually want to curtail the supply of cheap, illegal labor, now do we?
Because it would be exceedingly expensive, not to mention infringing on the rights of actual citizens, to try to track down all illegals. The government flushes enough of my money down the toilet already - I dont need them wasting more of it trying to hunt down someone who just wants to work and provide for his family. He has more of the American spirit than those who were born here and think all them brown people should be kicked out so employers will be desperate enough to hire a lazy bum for high wages.

Nice piece of diatribe. How does this reflect on my proposal?
Amnesty was tried. All it did was cause a greater flood of people which has caused a greater problem for everyone but the employers of illegals.


I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously. A strong economy is a diverse one. A diverse economy needs varied skill sets. The US will need both.
Jobs are created by the smart and educated. There are plenty of grunt workers. The only advantage of importing grunt workers is to drive down the price of labor through supply and demand.


Source?
I lived in Wayne NE in 1980 and it was common knowledge that the slaughter house paid $17/hr starting wage. I have friends in the area and the starting wage is $9/hr. There's a reason "no citizen will take the job."

I have been a vegetable farmer for 16 years. I was a founder of the Mo Vegetable Growers Association and was VP for 5 years. I could send you all sorts of industry catalogs.

I have no clue what you are trying to say here.

You said that because employers have lined the pockets of politicians that it would be impossible to pass a law that would fine employers for hiring illegals. I simply stated that in the end politicians care more about votes than money. They will try to use the money to get elected to help those that gave the money. But when push comes to shove, if the voters decide to vote in their best interest rather than on emotional issues that the government won't address anyway, the politicians will go against the money to keep the job.

Amnesty was tried. All it did was cause a greater flood of people which has caused a greater problem for everyone but the employers of illegals.

My uncle was one of those who received his green card in the last amnesty. He has since married and I now have a beautiful young cousin. He works for the oil industry as a pipe fitter.

You forgot that the immigrants also benefitted.

An influx of people will bring both good and bad things. If we deal with the problems realistically, we have a better chance at finding working solutions to the problems.

My proposal addresses some of those problems without causing more of them.

Jobs are created by the smart and educated. There are plenty of grunt workers. The only advantage of importing grunt workers is to drive down the price of labor through supply and demand.

Obviously all those illegal immigrants who have risked poverty, exploitation and extortion to work in the USA feel that there are more advantages than merely driving down the price of labor through supply and demand. There are obvious advantages to them.

You forgot the immigrants again. Interesting.

I lived in Wayne NE in 1980 and it was common knowledge that the slaughter house paid $17/hr starting wage. I have friends in the area and the starting wage is $9/hr. There's a reason "no citizen will take the job."

I have been a vegetable farmer for 16 years. I was a founder of the Mo Vegetable Growers Association and was VP for 5 years. I could send you all sorts of industry catalogs.

In other words, you have no source.

You said that because employers have lined the pockets of politicians that it would be impossible to pass a law that would fine employers for hiring illegals. I simply stated that in the end politicians care more about votes than money. They will try to use the money to get elected to help those that gave the money. But when push comes to shove, if the voters decide to vote in their best interest rather than on emotional issues that the government won't address anyway, the politicians will go against the money to keep the job.

Don't be naive. No politician is going to penalise the local successful employers. They'll simply go somewhere else where they can put the politicians in their pocket, and take the jobs with them. That's one problem with your idea.

Here's another: when the local economy depends on these immigrants, the public seems to think having them around is in their best interests. The local employers get cheap labour, and the customers get the products of cheap labour. People like being able to buy two heads of lettuce for a buck.

Are you upset because the Mexicans can always bid less than you? Sorry, but that's capitalism. I don't like it either, but I have learnt that it must be taken into account when trying to implement solutions to economic problems.

My uncle was one of those who received his green card in the last amnesty. He has since married and I now have a beautiful young cousin. He works for the oil industry as a pipe fitter.

You forgot that the immigrants also benefitted.

An influx of people will bring both good and bad things. If we deal with the problems realistically, we have a better chance at finding working solutions to the problems.

My proposal addresses some of those problems without causing more of them.



Obviously all those illegal immigrants who have risked poverty, exploitation and extortion to work in the USA feel that there are more advantages than merely driving down the price of labor through supply and demand. There are obvious advantages to them.

You forgot the immigrants again. Interesting.



In other words, you have no source.



Don't be naive. No politician is going to penalise the local successful employers. They'll simply go somewhere else where they can put the politicians in their pocket, and take the jobs with them. That's one problem with your idea.

Here's another: when the local economy depends on these immigrants, the public seems to think having them around is in their best interests. The local employers get cheap labour, and the customers get the products of cheap labour. People like being able to buy two heads of lettuce for a buck.

Are you upset because the Mexicans can always bid less than you? Sorry, but that's capitalism. I don't like it either, but I have learnt that it must be taken into account when trying to implement solutions to economic problems.

Ok, under the idea that even though it is bad for the poorest of the poor citizens it's great for those of impoverished nations. If we are going to serve as the place where the poor can get ahead then let's make the most of it. Let's not use sort of poor Latin Americans. Let's use the really poor of the world. We can really help them. So under that assumption, let's go to Sudan and pick up plane loads of those starving people and bring them to the US. They would be glad to bid pennies per hour. The businesses in the US can not only get rid of the under educated citizens but they can solve the Latin immigration problem as well. I'm sure in 40 years there will be some of those Sudanese that started out as 50 cent per hour immigrants will be $2 per hour pipe fitters. (Remember the price of labor doesn't only fall for the bottom, it works it's way up just as it did in the slaughter house.) Just think, we can have an economy of serfs working for a few Lords at the top. Worked for Europe for many years.

The solution is to deport all illegals. Simple as that...

annex Mexico
done. ;)

anyway, deporting them is great...except:

-they'll come right back
-if they don't come back a huge portion of the agricultural and service industries will be absolutely crushed by the lack of cheap labor

I happen to agree that anything not enumerated in the US Constitution is not the job, right, or duty of the Federal Government. The solution, therefore, leave enforcement to the states.
If states in the middle of the crop growing portions of the US want illegal immigrants to come in and pick their peaches, if the elite in Los Angeles want cheap labor to clean their toilets and mow their lawns, fine, it's you're states decision, either stop complaining or call your Congressman.
If states don't want the illegals at all, deport them to the countries border or to the nearest state that wants them there.
No one can seem to agree on "the big picture", but there doesn't need to be one. The US government has gotten bigger and bigger since the string of "social programs" that were instated during the Great Depression to help the country. ( I can only hope they were intended to be temporary.) The federal government gets bigger and bigger every year, while states' right get more an more trampled.
And by the way, the United States isn't a democracy, it's a republic. If you doubt this, look up the definition of Electoral College in your local dictionary. We don't directly elect our leaders. The Founding Fathers didn't think we could be trusted with that privilege.

The Mexican workers problem is even troublesome for Canada. Mexicans file for refugee claimants more than other country in the world and more than the top four countries in the world with refugee populations.

Pretty much all of these claims 7,000 annually have been rejected, but it hasn't stopped them from trying. The mexican president is in the process of improving the mexican seasonal workers program so its easier for more Mexicans to work in Canada's farmer fields in the summer.

The solution is to deport all illegals. Simple as that...
... PLEASE tell me you're joking.

The situation would be far better than their current situation. Allow me to rephrase the paragraph you found so humourous:

"So, the immigrants would still constitute an underclass in US society, but since they would no longer illegal, they would have legal recourse when faced with intolerable situations. Hence, far less exploitation."

I apologise for using an absolute term when I should have used a relative term.Apologise all you want, but I find the idea of a legally sanctioned underclass repugnant.

Ok, under the idea that even though it is bad for the poorest of the poor citizens it's great for those of impoverished nations. If we are going to serve as the place where the poor can get ahead then let's make the most of it. Let's not use sort of poor Latin Americans. Let's use the really poor of the world. We can really help them. So under that assumption, let's go to Sudan and pick up plane loads of those starving people and bring them to the US. They would be glad to bid pennies per hour. The businesses in the US can not only get rid of the under educated citizens but they can solve the Latin immigration problem as well. I'm sure in 40 years there will be some of those Sudanese that started out as 50 cent per hour immigrants will be $2 per hour pipe fitters. (Remember the price of labor doesn't only fall for the bottom, it works it's way up just as it did in the slaughter house.) Just think, we can have an economy of serfs working for a few Lords at the top. Worked for Europe for many years.

Why waste taxpayer money when there already people paying out of their own pocket to come to the USA?

The solution is to deport all illegals. Simple as that...

Ignoring your obvious racism and ignorance, I would like to point out that if it were that simple, it would have been done long ago. You fail at posting anything intelligent.

I happen to agree that anything not enumerated in the US Constitution is not the job, right, or duty of the Federal Government. The solution, therefore, leave enforcement to the states.
If states in the middle of the crop growing portions of the US want illegal immigrants to come in and pick their peaches, if the elite in Los Angeles want cheap labor to clean their toilets and mow their lawns, fine, it's you're states decision, either stop complaining or call your Congressman.
If states don't want the illegals at all, deport them to the countries border or to the nearest state that wants them there.
No one can seem to agree on "the big picture", but there doesn't need to be one. The US government has gotten bigger and bigger since the string of "social programs" that were instated during the Great Depression to help the country. ( I can only hope they were intended to be temporary.) The federal government gets bigger and bigger every year, while states' right get more an more trampled.
And by the way, the United States isn't a democracy, it's a republic. If you doubt this, look up the definition of Electoral College in your local dictionary. We don't directly elect our leaders. The Founding Fathers didn't think we could be trusted with that privilege.

While I think decentralisation of power is a good idea, I think that having each state decide immigration issues on its own would be difficult in practice. From what I understand, issues such as border security and social services are under federal management. Any comprehensive approach to immigration requires changes to these areas as well. Consequently, the federal government would have to give up those powers too. No one wants to give up power.

Apologise all you want, but I find the idea of a legally sanctioned underclass repugnant.

I find the idea of any underclass repugnant. But I find the idea of a legally sanctioned one that has access to legal protection and civil rights less repugnant than the current situation. Right now, you have an illegal underclass that is being exploited by their employers and is regarded as criminal by the government.

Why waste taxpayer money when there already people paying out of their own pocket to come to the USA?



If we bring the starving out of Sudan they will work for rice and be glad of it. It can be pure capitalism they can bid for jobs in rice (maybe 50 cents per hour) and the ones that bring themselves can bid $2 per hour. Now the way I figure it I can save enough giving rice to the people from Sudan that the ticket will be paid for in less than a month. Everything after that is gravy. AND I'm helping the world so much more. I'm being a far better Christian. After all the Latins aren't starving when they leave home. The Sudanese will make far better progress than the Latins ever could. And if the uneducated, unskilled citizens end up begging on the street---well that's ok because God wants me to take care of the masses of the world first and my neighbor second.

Isn't that what God said. Love the Lord your God and Love the masses of the world like yourself.

I don't buy any of these arguements that the economy "needs" this cheap labor source. Cheap labor is a crutch... A drug that this economy is addicted to. Frankly, I think we need to be weened off it. These aren't jobs Americans won't do - They are jobs Americans won't do as cheaply as illegals will.

If there was no source of illegal labor, wages would adjust to what it takes to get the job done. Prices would adjust for that. It would be some sticker shock at first. Maybe some businesses close. Others would replace them. Innovation would come into play to help improve practices that need to be improved. But the US economy is flexible and it would adapt and be stronger for it in the end.

So, IMHO, the focus on stopping illegals should be on stopping the employment of illegals. Strong fines coupled with new identification processes. Whatever it takes. If there's no jobs for them, they go home and it improves the situation for citizens.

If we bring the starving out of Sudan they will work for rice and be glad of it. It can be pure capitalism they can bid for jobs in rice (maybe 50 cents per hour) and the ones that bring themselves can bid $2 per hour. Now the way I figure it I can save enough giving rice to the people from Sudan that the ticket will be paid for in less than a month. Everything after that is gravy. AND I'm helping the world so much more. I'm being a far better Christian. After all the Latins aren't starving when they leave home. The Sudanese will make far better progress than the Latins ever could. And if the uneducated, unskilled citizens end up begging on the street---well that's ok because God wants me to take care of the masses of the world first and my neighbor second.

Isn't that what God said. Love the Lord your God and Love the masses of the world like yourself.

Er... no.

The cost of living in Sudan, yes that can work.

The cost of living in the US, no it won't.

The people you "help" will be in very poor condition if that's how you payed them.

Er... no.

The cost of living in Sudan, yes that can work.

The cost of living in the US, no it won't.

The people you "help" will be in very poor condition if that's how you payed them.

People living 10 to a house making $5 / hr are in a poor condition. It's just a big gray area as to how far you want to go. Where do you draw the line?

If we put 10 in a tent on my back 40 and I feed them rice everyday so I can get the cheapest labor possible. That's only worse by degree not by fact.

And if we bring in any more competition and flood the market with starving Sudanese. Hey, that's free enterprise. Don't you believe in free enterprise for everyone or just for the illegals we now have? I'm helping those who are really poor with this plan, not just those without a few kitchen appliances.

The more labor the more the supply and demand goes to the person hiring. That's what has happened for 27 years, let's just take it to the ultimate extreme. We are already starving citizens, let's starve those that took the citizens jobs. At least they have someplace to go back to. The Sudanese will be totally at our mercy. They will have no way to swim the river in the opposite direction. We did it with Africans once, why not again?

That's what you are advocating when you say totally free enterprise capitalism. The job goes to the lowest bidder. A bowl of rice is the lowest bidder.

If we bring the starving out of Sudan they will work for rice and be glad of it....Isn't that what God said. Love the Lord your God and Love the masses of the world like yourself.

If you have anything realistic or practical to say, please do so. I will not respond to this tripe anymore.

I don't buy any of these arguements that the economy "needs" this cheap labor source. Cheap labor is a crutch... A drug that this economy is addicted to. Frankly, I think we need to be weened off it. These aren't jobs Americans won't do - They are jobs Americans won't do as cheaply as illegals will....So, IMHO, the focus on stopping illegals should be on stopping the employment of illegals. Strong fines coupled with new identification processes. Whatever it takes. If there's no jobs for them, they go home and it improves the situation for citizens.

The economy needs this labour force to continue in roughly the same shape as before. As I have already explained in this thread, this is necessary in order to get the powerful people to back the proposal.

People living 10 to a house making $5 / hr are in a poor condition. It's just a big gray area as to how far you want to go. Where do you draw the line?...The more labor the more the supply and demand goes to the person hiring. That's what has happened for 27 years, let's just take it to the ultimate extreme....That's what you are advocating when you say totally free enterprise capitalism. The job goes to the lowest bidder. A bowl of rice is the lowest bidder.

No one's going to bring in Sudanese. By harping on this, you just show that you don't want to have a realistic discussion about this. And what the hell happened twenty seven years that you're so fixated on 1980?

If you have anything realistic or practical to say, please do so. I will not respond to this tripe anymore.



The economy needs this labour force to continue in roughly the same shape as before. As I have already explained in this thread, this is necessary in order to get the powerful people to back the proposal.



No one's going to bring in Sudanese. By harping on this, you just show that you don't want to have a realistic discussion about this. And what the hell happened twenty seven years that you're so fixated on 1980?

By bringing in the Sudanese I'm showing you how it matters not that the illegals do better in the US. That isn't a concern of the US any more than the welfare of the Sudanese is a concern of the US. I'm also trying to show you what has happened as the supply of labor has outstripped the demand. And the consequences of unrestricted capitalism. There is nothing more capitalistic than slavery.

The economy does not need the workforce. It merely drives down the price of labor in those areas where we need manual labor. (That is the labor of the poorest of the poor. Something that people with a name like yours should think about) If the slaughter house paid $17/hr (even without inflation) there would be no lack of US labor. And it hinders the utilization of available technology such as in vegetable farming. Why should I spend $50,000 on a machine that will pick up my pumpkins when I can pay $5/hr and get them picked up for less than the interest on the machine and with no paperwork.

You want realism:

Get the voters upset enough to demand change. Political contributions only have power when the voters sleep.

Fine the employer $1,000/worker/day. Suddenly that $17/hr or that $50,000 machine isn't so expensive.

In 1980 the "conservatives" took over and they paid off their contributors by flooding the market with cheap labor, thereby (through supply and demand) made it possible to drive down the price of all labor. Thereby shrinking the middle class and sending the poor into greater poverty. To make sure the employers didn't need to pay more, they froze the minimum wage at $3.35 and passed laws that broke the unions. In order to keep the public sleeping they talked of emotional issues they planned to do nothing about, while cutting the practical things that would have aided the poor and middle. It took this long for even some of the voters to wake up and see what had been done to them.

By bringing in the Sudanese I'm showing you how it matters not that the illegals do better in the US. That isn't a concern of the US any more than the welfare of the Sudanese is a concern of the US. I'm also trying to show you what has happened as the supply of labor has outstripped the demand. And the consequences of unrestricted capitalism. There is nothing more capitalistic than slavery.

So, are you trying to say that immigrants are unimportant? That capitalism should be abolished due to slavery? That there is curreently a labour glut?

The economy does not need the workforce. It merely drives down the price of labor in those areas where we need manual labor. (That is the labor of the poorest of the poor. Something that people with a name like yours should think about) If the slaughter house paid $17/hr (even without inflation) there would be no lack of US labor. And it hinders the utilization of available technology such as in vegetable farming. Why should I spend $50,000 on a machine that will pick up my pumpkins when I can pay $5/hr and get them picked up for less than the interest on the machine and with no paperwork.

The economy needs this labour force to continue in roughly the same shape as before. As I have already explained in this thread, this is necessary in order to get the powerful people to back the proposal. This labour force may be driving down the cost of labour, but you have yet to provide any indication that it has done so. This link (http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/w11281.pdf) shows that illegal aliens increasing the supply of low skilled labor had a long-term reduction of wages among American poor citizens during the 1980s and 1990s by 4.8%. Not almost 100% as you claim. This reduction in labour wages is already be a problem with the current situation. There is nothing to suggest that my proposal would make this worse.

You want realism:

Get the voters upset enough to demand change. Political contributions only have power when the voters sleep.

Fine the employer $1,000/worker/day. Suddenly that $17/hr or that $50,000 machine isn't so expensive.

You're being naive again. I've pointed out the flaws in this idea of yours three or four times now.

I find the idea of any underclass repugnant. But I find the idea of a legally sanctioned one that has access to legal protection and civil rights less repugnant than the current situation. Right now, you have an illegal underclass that is being exploited by their employers and is regarded as criminal by the government.By sanctioning an underclass, you are accepting it as part of the status quo.

What you are saying is better than the current situation is not much better than indentured servitude, which was nothing better than slavery, and often worse.

I don't know the US doesn't have an open borders policy. When 10 new member states acceded to the EU in 2004 it was claimed that the UK would be swamped with 500,000 immigrants. It wasn't. Only 50,000 are thought to have immigrated.

An open borders policy means are able to track increases in immigrant populations and make adjustments as necessary. It also means immigrants are less likely to stop off permanently are the first town they arrive in.

Right now, however many millions of illegal immigrants are living in the US, and they are doing so without causing the much talked about economic doom that they are supposed to precipitate.

So, are you trying to say that immigrants are unimportant? That capitalism should be abolished due to slavery? That there is curreently a labour glut?



The economy needs this labour force to continue in roughly the same shape as before. As I have already explained in this thread, this is necessary in order to get the powerful people to back the proposal. This labour force may be driving down the cost of labour, but you have yet to provide any indication that it has done so. This link (http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/w11281.pdf) shows that illegal aliens increasing the supply of low skilled labor had a long-term reduction of wages among American poor citizens during the 1980s and 1990s by 4.8%. Not almost 100% as you claim. This reduction in labour wages is already be a problem with the current situation. There is nothing to suggest that my proposal would make this worse.



You're being naive again. I've pointed out the flaws in this idea of yours three or four times now.

I guess if you want the poor to continue to take cuts because of supply and demand of labor. And you don't care about the ripple effect through the middle class. What can I say? You give a d--- about people that break the law but don't give a d--- about poor honest people. Now there's God in your life.

I guess you don't understand how the republic works since I've explained it several times.

People living 10 to a house making $5 / hr are in a poor condition. It's just a big gray area as to how far you want to go. Where do you draw the line?

If we put 10 in a tent on my back 40 and I feed them rice everyday so I can get the cheapest labor possible. That's only worse by degree not by fact.



Ah.

The US had a system very similar to that.

It ended about 140 years ago.

edit: On second read, you apparently are infact suggesting reinitializing slavery. As such, I am not going to debate anyone so repugnant.

In essence, you are making a repeat of MTAE.

Good for you.

Right now, however many millions of illegal immigrants are living in the US, and they are doing so without causing the much talked about economic doom that they are supposed to precipitate.

The cost of labor has plummeted in the time since the government started a policy of ignoring illegal immigration. This has been great for business owners that had no conscience about breaking the law. For the poorest of the poor it has been disaster, for the middle it has caused static wages. For the honest businessperson that has had to compete it has ended their dreams.

Ah.

The US had a system very similar to that.

It ended about 140 years ago.

Exactly. The difference is when they're your property you care about their health and keeping their strength up. When you just rent them they become "throw away" as we can see when today's headline is "Fewer Employed Have Health Insurance" .

The cost of labor has plummeted in the time since the government started a policy of ignoring illegal immigration. This has been great for business owners that had no conscience about breaking the law. For the poorest of the poor it has been disaster, for the middle it has caused static wages. For the honest businessperson that has had to compete it has ended their dreams.Whoops, I forgot the US doesn't have in place any decent regulations to prevent exploitations of workers.

edit: On second read, you apparently are infact suggesting reinitializing slavery. As such, I am not going to debate anyone so repugnant.

In essence, you are making a repeat of MTAE.

Good for you.

I was being sarcastic, taking the point that we should care about the illegals to the extreme. The point was that if we are to care about the poor of the world by giving up the living level of the US we could do it right by bringing in the real poor of the world and not just those that are a little poorer than the US poor.

By sanctioning an underclass, you are accepting it as part of the status quo...
Right now, however many millions of illegal immigrants are living in the US, and they are doing so without causing the much talked about economic doom that they are supposed to precipitate.

The current situation in regards to illegal immigration is one of an exploited underclass. I accept it as part of my reality. I do not accept that we should treat people this way. Therefore, I am looking for a solution. I do not think that the UK situation is comparable to the US situation, as the UK does not share an overland border with a developing nation.

Mind you, I think an open recognition on the part of the US governemtn, and its people, of the fact that they already have an open border would go a long way. Then they could implement a system like you described. Open and free movement of labour is inevitable in our brave new world of globalisation.

You are correct that the immigrants are not causing untold doom among the USians. However, there are problems associated with illegal immigration. I think it's important to realise that illegal immigration itself is not the problem. This is so important to point out, I'm going to do this:

Illegal immigration is not the problem.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to slip that into the conversation.

I guess if you want the poor to continue to take cuts because of supply and demand of labor. And you don't care about the ripple effect through the middle class. What can I say? You give a d--- about people that break the law but don't give a d--- about poor honest people. Now there's God in your life.

I guess you don't understand how the republic works since I've explained it several times.

The statement "the poor continue to take cuts because of supply and demand of labor", is a claim. In debate, it is normal to back up these claims with sources. Since we both know how to use the internet, I suggest you use the internet to find sources for your debates. You can even provide links, so I can see your sources, like this:

My claim: illegal immigration has no effect on how much poor USian people earn!

My back up:

A study by the Rand Corporation, conducted by Kevin McCarthy and Georges Vernez, came to the conclusion that immigrants do not have a negative effect on the earnings and the employment opportunities of native-born Americans.

My link, so you can go look at it and see for yourself if I'm telling the truth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

You haven't done this at all. So I'm having trouble taking you seriously.

Not to mention how you equate the immigrants with law breakers, even though the majority are poor, honest people. Those same ones you claim to give a damn about. I guess it only counts if they were born on this side of the Rio Grande.

As for the functioning of the republic:

...other participants in the general environment, such as politicians and religious groups, have a vested interest in not enforcing interior immigration laws. Such groups stand to receive benefits from a larger alien population--one for votes, the other for potential converts. The implied powerlessness may be a strategic attempt to soften the impact of an amnesty program.

http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html