I think Dems should drop the illegal immigrant amnesty idea like a hot potato.

[MoonRiver]

It is just too divisive, and the upside to our society of passing legislation in this area is marginal, if not questionable. The majority of people see (giving amnesty to illegal immigrants) as patently unfair, since the they did not follow the law to get into our country. Whether justified or not, the appearance is giving lawbreakers a pass. Amnesty is also viewed as a national security threat.

I feel we should focus on more pressing needs, such as health care, tax reform, campaign finance reform, and electoral reform. Since we now set the legislative agenda, and * is basically our butt boy, why open up this can of worms. We need to build the maximum amount of support to take more of Congress and get the White House in '08. I just don't see the upside of passing legislation to give illegal aliens amnesty. Seems to me it can only hurt us, and thereby the nation.

[brentspeak]

1. Agree

[noahmijo]

2. I don't see any Dems pushing for amnesty-I have seen some however who push for federal punishment of

employers who hire illegals which I am completely in favor of-THAT is the root of the problem of illegal immigration right there.

[MoonRiver]

18. I definitely think punishing the employers is the correct way to go.

Sorry that I didn't know the politically correct phraseology. Seems that the word "amnesty" is heretical. But whether one calls it earned citizenship or amnesty, I think everybody knows the concept I am referring to.

[EFerrari]

28. The "way to go" is for the United States to stopp f*cking with

elections in Latin America, as we did and are doing in Venezuela, Mexico and Nicaragua.

And did you notice that Junior just signed on to "train" troops in Latin America to "guard" against the "leftist threat"? That means, you will be paying for murderers and mercenaries to kill anyone who steps up for democracy and development in those countries.

Until the government of the United States realizes that Latin America is no longer its plantation, you will continue to have this conversation because where there is no peace there can be no prosperity. And keeping Latin America under threat of arms has been the American way to keep it under control. And to hell with those people or ours.

[MoonRiver]

56. I agree with you!

I'm furious about what we have done in Latin America. It an outrage. Hopefully our new Democratic majority can block further rightwing atrocities in LA and other parts of the world.

My only point was about what legislation Dems should bring up during the next 2 years.

[TahitiNut]

66. Clearly, propping up the "Ownership Class" in Latin America is at the heart

... of the vast majority of oppression there. By no means the least is the 100-year-long oppression-by-proxy of "leftists" in Mexico. No small degree of "Red Scare" reactionary interference has targeted Mexican politics - and propped up the Plantation Overseers like Fox.

I don't believe the "undocumented migration" (it's NOT just 'immigration' or even mostly so) problem can be adequately addressed at this point without reversing that course and placing ENORMOUS pressure on Mexico's government to enact REAL economic reform ... education being among the foremost priorities.

Mexico needs a new Cárdenas/Zapata era ... far longer than just 6 years of it.

[Vorta]

73. Part of the problem is the way Mexico treats Americans who want to live or do business there.

Unless they have changed the laws in the last couple of months, Americans (or any foreigner I suppose) cannot hold direct, clear, and safe title to land in Mexico.

[Vorta]

109. Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Not the US declaration- the Texas declaration:

When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.

When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the everready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants.

When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.

When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness.

Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken, of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth.

The Mexican government, by its colonization laws, invited and induced the Anglo-American population of Texas to colonize its wilderness under the pledged faith of a written constitution, that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America.

In this expectation they have been cruelly disappointed, inasmuch as the Mexican nation has acquiesced in the late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers us the cruel alternative, either to abandon our homes, acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood.

more: http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/tdoi.htm

[TahitiNut]

62. I completely agree.

[Teaser]

3. You're using Repug code words

No dems are talking about amnesty. Some are talking about earned citizenship.

[NNN0LHI]

4. The Hispanic vote will be deciding presidential elections soon

If we can see to it they get their voting rights the majority will be voting Democratic.

Try looking into the future a little bit.

Don

[mikehiggins]

6. At the risk of seeming argumentative ;^)

just what do you mean by "their voting rights"? If these people you are discussing are what most people refer to as "illegal immigrants" what voting rights do they actually have?

To me, that is like insisting a bank robber also be given the free toaster. It just doesn't make sense.

[NNN0LHI]

12. All American citizens have voting rights

Any immigrant in this country right now should be given a path to citizenship.

The alternative of that idea is to "round them all up" and deport them. Something that I would become militant about if some racist pricks attempted doing it.

Don

[Vorta]

32. I object to your labelling as racist everyone who wants to deport illegals

But I defend your right to feel that way.

[EFerrari]

34. No, you misunderstood. The racism comes in when you conflate

"illegal immigrant" with "Hispanic".

And yes, this topic is studded with opportunities for racism to rear its head.

[Vorta]

38. My mistake

Sometimes when this discussion comes up, some folks assume that those of us who support controlling our borders only object to Mexicans coming here illegally.

[EFerrari]

41. Maybe that's because these threads always talk about Mexicans. n/t

[Vorta]

44. Well they are something of the poster child

I have a couple of reasons for opposing immigration. We can call it racism if we like, Sidhartha Gautama is said to have said that even the existance of national borders is a class system on a macro level. So if I oppose immigration simply because I think there are enough people in this country, then I am in essence saying that I want to safeguard our class and make it inaccessible to those who would come here to be in it.

I really do think we need fewer, not more people.

[EFerrari]

48. Especially fewer brown people -- I mean, children. n/t

[piedmont]

83. ad hominem

Vorta said no such thing. You are trying to imply that he/she is a racist.

[EFerrari]

111. That is the logical extension of the argument, not to mention,

the paternalism.

[Bridget Burke]

106. And they wonder why we call them racists...

Those who oppose immigration, that is. ESPECIALLY by certain people.

[Vorta]

110. I don't wonder about it much.

It seems like it's often used to try to shut down people who have a different opinion. Of course, it's possible to honestly believe that the person one is calling a racist (for his immigration views) is indeed a racist, but to make such a claim with some integrity one would have to know more about his position. Everything is not always as it appears in a snapshot. There are people who oppose illegal immigration from Mexico who support immigration from Cuba. We frequently have blow-ups in Florida because of the preference given Cubans over Haitians.

When I lived in California I rarely heard anyone complain about Vietnamese immigration, or Filipinos. but often heard complaints about certain other SE Asian immigrants. This is racism in the sense that we are preferring people by their nation, but not in the sense that one usually hears the accusation tossed about.

At this point, calling someone a racist is so common it's only slightly more meaningful than calling him stupid.

[Odin2005]

78. Because most illegal immigrants ARE from Mexico!

Just because the Pukes use illigal immigration to scare the racists doesn't make illigal immigration any less illigal.

[treestar]

61. What explanation is left, when the enforcement mechanism is

already there? It's not good enough for you. Why is that the case? Why do you care so much? Why not just have an amnesty and legalize them all so they are not illegal? We're not talking about murderers here, just workers.

These laws can be changed at any time to make more sense, be more modern, and do good for our economy. As they should be, the laws we have are from 1952 and they are stupid. We cannot enforce them, if we wanted to spend the money to do it we'd have to pay higher taxes and the INS would start to resemble the Gestapo.

To be so bothered by the number of Mexicans here, even if they are illegal, just seems to have no other explanation. Do you even have to talk to them? Do they ever say anything to you? It is just the sight of them on the streets occsassionally that bothers you?

[Vorta]

75. re

We're not talking about murderers here...

In Florida we often are.

Here's a link of DOJ funded studies, stats, and analysis http://www.urban.org/publications/410366.html

These laws can be changed at any time to make more sense, be more modern, and do good for our economy. As they should be,

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. It doesn't mean that I am a racist or that you aren't.

the laws we have are from 1952

I don't know what specific laws you are referring to. The United States of America and its various states and the United States Of Mexico have had immigration laws for a lot longer than 54 years.

[EFerrari]

31. The poster was referring to the Hispanic vote, like mine. n/t

[NorthernSpy]

52. Wrong! The "Hispanic vote" has repeatedly proved to be myth...

There is no such thing as "the Hispanic vote", because Latinos simply do not demonstrate either the sufficiently high civic participation or the group unity that would characterize a coherent voting bloc of the sort capable of deciding elections. Consider:

Cubans do vote in high numbers, but they usually vote Republican, unless someone like Menendez is running -- then they vote for him. Besides, Cubans (who are subject to very different immigration policies) have shown little interest in taking up the cause of the illegals.

Puerto Ricans (who are of course all citizens from birth, whether born here or in Puerto Rico) tend to vote Democratic, and this may also be the case for other Latinos of Carribean origin, such as Dominicans.

Mexicans have some of the lowest voter turnout around, and even those who do vote have not shown any consistent party preference at the ballot box. The much-heralded drive to register a million new Latino voters has been a disaster, partly for the first reason. In fact, when Bustamante ran in the California governorship recall election, he got only about half of the votes cast by Latinos; this is despite the fact that Bustamante, the only Latino candidate in the race, had long been a strong advocate of Latino interests and issues. If there really were a coherent "Latino vote" capable of deciding elections, it should certainly have shown up to decide that one. Didn't happen.


So no, there is nothing out there that we could reasonably refer to as "the Latino vote", and there's no particular reason to think that there will be for a long time to come. No matter how much some of us might like them to be, Latinos are not a single, coherent group with the kind of common history and shared ethos that forms an election-deciding voting bloc.

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. Oh I disagree

The Hispanic population is set to be the majority in just a few years in this country. Seeing how they had no trouble uniting last spring for the massive rallies all over the country, I say they are a force to be reckoned with.

[NorthernSpy]

67. study: "Immigration is Not a Top Issue for Latino Voters"

http://www.pinedaconsulting.com/index.php/2006/06/16/immigration-is-not-a-top-issue-for-latino-voters/

Much has been made of the fact that Latino voters are not particularly permissive when it comes to immigration. Whether it’s border security or English as a national language, Latinos seem to surprise some observers by taking a hard line in polls. Not only does this not surprise me, but it also obscures a more important and less-mentioned point: immigration is not high on the list of priorities for Latino voters.

The graphs above highlight the top six issues for American adults and Latino voters as recently surveyed by Hart Research and Greenberg Research. Among American adults, illegal immigration is now tied for second as the highest priority, only behind the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, as Latino voters ponder their congressional vote, the issues of jobs, education, the war in Iraq and Medicare/Social Security all appear to impact their decision process more than immigration. “We’re already here,” Latino voters seem to be saying. “We’ve got things more relevant to our present lives to worry about, like jobs that pay well and how to educate our kids.”

Over the weekend, I’ll discuss why I think this means Democrats in 2006 should not invest too much energy using the immigration issue to win back the Latinos we lost to George W. Bush in 2004. If Republicans want to form a circular firing squad, we should let them. And no question immigration has become very important to white voters. But I’m not sure how many new Latino voters we’re going to make because of the immigration issue, which seems to be NDN’s goal. The uncertainty over the potential for new voters just reinforces why we need to talk to Latinos who are already voters about the issues they care about. Immigration isn’t really one of them.

Those marches did NOT translate into significant numbers of new votes or new voters.

And no, Latinos are NOT "set to be the majority in just a few years in this country". Where'd you get that idea?

[proud2BlibKansan]

68. From the census bureau

Oops I meant to say majority minority population. This has been projected for many years now.

By mid-century, 25 percent or one out of every four people in the United States will be Hispanic. The African American population by mid-century will remain at the current rate of 13 percent of the total United States population. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)

http://www.ushcc.com/res-statistics.html

[NorthernSpy]

70. a language-defined minority will tend to fade away as a discrete group...

Unlike blacks, who form a long-standing coherent single population group in American society, Hispanics are a linguistic minority. The thing about a language-defined minority is that it tends to disappear as a discrete group as time passes and the children become assimilated into the dominant language culture.

When you say that fifty years from now, there will be twice as many Hispanics as blacks, and that Hispanics will therefore be the most populous minority, it's kind of like saying that you have twice as many shoes as apples, and therefore shoes are the most abundant kind of fruit. Hispanics aren't a single minority group in the sense that blacks are, and their status as a language-defined minority doesn't suggest much longevity for a distinct "Latino" identity (as opposed to, say, a specifically Mexican identity, or Puerto Rican identity, etc).


(And even that's just assuming that current levels of immigration, including illegal immigration, are maintained.)

[Odin2005]

80. This is a very good point.

"Hispanic" is a cultural term, not a racial one. There are white hispanics (like Fidel Castro, Michelle Blanchet, Selma Hayek, etc.), black hispanics (like Sammy Sosa), Native American hispanics (like Evo Morales) and mixed-race hispanics. The average Joe ignorantly uses the term "hispanic" to mean hispanics of mixed white and Native American ancestry.

[Vorta]

89. The problem is that people don't fit as neatly in the categories as would be convenient.

Hispanic according to the US government means "can be of any race", but in practice most people use Hispanic to refer to people in the Americas of Spanish or Spanish -Amerindian hybrid descent exclusive of black people who are considered black. This is consistent considering that we don't include black islanders and Africans who speak French in some super category with all persons who speak French.

IN essence , Hispanic is a "new race" created in our lifetime.

All of this is subjective. There is no truly scientific basis for racial categories. There are dozens if not hundreds of races, we only run into trouble when we try to stuff everybody into three or four major racial groupings as was done by the 18TH and 19TH century scientists. They based their classification partially on language, physical characteristics, skin color, and culture.

[NNN0LHI]

82. The immigration issue is not a TOP issue for any large voting group

Except for the people claiming to be Lou Dobbs Democrats whoever the hell they are I guess.

Don

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 15-19, 2006. N=1,131 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" Open-ended

ALL Adults Republicans Democrats Independents
% % % %
War in Iraq 22 15 32 19
Terrorism (general) 14 26 6 12
Economy/Jobs 11 7 16 10
Immigration 4 8 2 3
Gas/Heating oil crisis 3 3 2 4
Health care 3 2 4 3
Foreign policy 3 1 3 5
Defense/Military 3 4 1 2
Foreign aid 3 1 2 6
President Bush 3 1 7 2
Other 25 24 21 28
Unsure 6 8 4 6

[papau]

86. You confused the Hispanic majority support for tough border security and for

english as the national language with the idea that the hispanic population is OK with deporting the 12 million here now and working.

As a group - and they are a cohesive group as to this issue - deportation is a non-starter.

To pretend other wise indicates too much Lou Dobbs TV watching.

[papau]

87. Again -future immigration have at it - but deporting 12 million is a non-starter for

hispanics (and most other folks). The writer in you post conflates a deportation solution with being tough on border security - not too logical.

[Vorta]

100. I think the writer was only suggesting deportation of the current load of illegals.

I haven't seen anyone (other than Stormfront of course) suggesting that we could or should deport all "Spanish surnamed Americans" (hows that for giving away my age?), or even all folks who identify as Hispanic.

ALthough, it would rid us of one obnoxious Attorney General and a generation of Bushies.

[papau]

113. 12 million is the number of ILLEGAL aliens now working/living in the US -most

having been here more than 5 years.

[countryjake]

115. And how exactly shall the "deporters" tell who it is needs deporting?

Legislating rampant discrimination against any portion of a country's population sounds like the opposite of "democracy", to me. Gee, think they'll reward real citizens with bounties, too?

[RagingInMiami]

74. This "myth" you're referring to made up eight percent of the total vote

during the last election.

This "myth" you are referring to voted 73 percent democrat during the last election.

If the Hispanic vote was indeed a "myth", the dems would not have won so big during the last election.

[treestar]

58. Really, this is a formula for just tossing the Hispanic vote

Not to mention these 12 million illegals becoming legal is the path to more democratic voters. And they have families who are legal and have become citizens.

Really hard for me to understand the panic at the Mexicans who have come to live here. Just not worth it. They won't make Spanish into the national language. They don't take a job from any American who wants it. They don't hurt the economy, they help it. They don't go on welfare. All of these canards have been shot down again and again by studies of the real world.

[NorthernSpy]

69. so many false statements there, I hardly know how to begin...

Really, this is a formula for just tossing the Hispanic vote

Not to mention these 12 million illegals becoming legal is the path to more democratic voters. And they have families who are legal and have become citizens.

Wrong! See http://www.pinedaconsulting.com/index.php/2006/06/16/immigration-is-not-a-top-issue-for-latino-voters/ (Immigration is not a Top Issue for Latino Voters), as well as my own post #52.

Really hard for me to understand the panic at the Mexicans who have come to live here. Just not worth it. They won't make Spanish into the national language. They don't take a job from any American who wants it.

Let me stop you right there. When the Crider chicken processing plant in Stillmore, Georgia was raided by ICE, the factory lost over half of its workforce. In response, Crider raised wages, and Americans came back to the plant -- which is operating again now. Don't tell me that the illegals haven't driven down wages and taken jobs from Americans: they have, indisputably.

They don't hurt the economy, they help it.

They help rich, unscrupulous employers pocket a few more dollars, but that's about it.

Contrary to the common wisdom, the use of illegal labor does not knock much off the shelf price of produce, because most of the price of a head of lettuce or a box of strawberries at the grocery store comes from shipping, storage, and shelving costs. The percentage of what the consumer pays that goes to field labor is miniscule, whether the laborers are legal or illegal. Using only legal labor could significantly raise the wages that the grower must pay, but this would add only a couple of pennies to the grocery store price.

They don't go on welfare.

That's a deceptive statement. Illegals and their families DO use public services and emergency room care, and whatever taxes they pay don't begin to come close to covering the cost of these things. The people who use illegal labor are simply forcing the rest of us to subsidize their labor costs.

A lot of Americans are fed up with that. And they have a right to be.

All of these canards have been shot down again and again by studies of the real world.

Yeah, and they've just been shot down again by me. Though I know that isn't quite what you meant...



(edit: removed duplicated word, supplied missing word)

[papau]

88. "They" don't hurt the economy, they help may be true for immigrants as shown by

Yes, Immigration May Lift Wages - New York Times
posted on Thursday, November 3rd, 2005

“As economists know all too well, changing the assumptions of a model can often change the results. In a new working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, two other economists using methodology similar to Professor Borjas’s but different assumptions get the opposite result.

In “Rethinking the Gains From Immigration: Theory and Evidence From the U.S.,” Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano of the University of Bologna and Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis estimate that immigration in the 1990’s increased the average wage of American-born workers by 2.7 percent. (The paper is available at www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gperi or at the Giovanni Peri web site).


=======================================================================================
There will now be 23 Latinos in the House of Representatives - and Election 2006 exit polls showed more than seven in 10 Hispanics voted Democratic in races for House seats. Meanwhile, some 27 percent voted Republican — an 11-percentage-point drop from the prior midterm election in 2002.

[AZBlue]

93. Many Hispanic citizens (and only citizens can vote) are against illegal immigration.

They jumped through the unnecessary hoops and waited (and waited) to legally immigrate - and they don't appreciate those that don't follow the same laws they did.

[MGD]

107. Hispanics should not be twisting arms that way

as that kind of a game has a lot to do with American opposition to their presence in the first place.

[mikehiggins]

5. I concur

though I'd like to wait awhile before we decide that what is good for the DemocratIC Party is necessarily good for the nation as a whole. Even we make mistakes, you know (and if you don't, try Viet Nam and/or NAFTA to start with).

There is a widespread resistance to amnesty because it is unjust, not because it is wrong or racist. It is just unfair, and while it might appear to be helping the illegal immigrant, the main beneficiaries are the business interests who are using them to undermine the rights and working conditions of US workers.

Just like outsourcing, the arguments in favor of this idea do not conceal the fact that it works more to the benefit of the wealthy than to the poor and middle class, or even to the illegal immigrants themselves.

[EFerrari]

33. How do you figure that amnesty is "unjust"?

I'd like to hear the argument.

To my mind, after keeping Latin America awash in blood for a hundred and fifty years and blocking every effort at democracy in every way we possibly could, it's the least we can do. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than reparations and we get their tax money. :eyes:

[Vorta]

43. Let's close our eyes and speak politically about Hispanic immigrants

How would one describe Hispanic men who come to the US if one didn't perceive them as being something other than caucasian or a caucasian/indian blend?

Mel Martinez' has been in this country for less than my lifetime and I am having to fight him for my civil rights? There's something majorly screwed up about that. Luis Padilla, a formerly illegal alien who has now married for the family value of a green card, campaigned to pass the amendment in Virginia. Orange County California is heavily represented with republicans with Hispanic surnames. Jeb Bush's son, the "little brown one" as his grandfather referred to him, is finishing up his apprenticeship in bigotry as we speak.

I think the presumption that immigrants who come here for economic reasons are necessarily going to appreciate Democratic ideals is false.

[EFerrari]

47. Non sequitur. n/t

[Ian David]

7. Amnesty is the word the Repukes are using to mischaracterize the real position

The Earned Path to Citizenship is NOT Amnesty.

[papau]

8. "illegal immigrant amnesty" is GOP crap words - proposed is a difficult earned

citizenship that is a sensible solution to the demographic and employment situation/problem that confronts us.

[KG]

9. i concur.

the right thing should only be done when it's convenient for the dem party. :eyes:

[TroglodyteScholar]

10. Yep...let the Repugs arrest and punish all 2 million "illegals" when they get back in power n/t

They'll find this difficult to accomplish.

[skids]

11. I think they should tack the Human Dignity Act onto the min wage bill.

...and PR blitz about the sweatshops and the dubious "made in the usa" labels. It would be a good first step towards showing that Dems are pro-American-labor, not to mention it would shut down a horrible human rights abuse and kill off an old Abramoff money generator.

[durrrty libby]

13. I want to see "punish the employers hard" as a first and

hard line, with extreme punishment

[porphyrian]

14. I think we should re-frame the entire issue.

This is really a security issue. There are already law enforcement agencies in place to deal with the illegals who are here. They are as effective as people want them to be, which isn't very, because too many people profit from illegal labor. If we wanted to end this discussion tomorrow, we could simply punish swiftly and severely anyone who hires an illegal alien. Instead, let's focus on the 9/11 Commission's recommendations in making our country more secure. Doing so addresses the security of our borders, and thus the immigrant issue.

[bowens43]

15. Legalization is not amnesty

and most Americans will support it.If we have to become bigots and hatemongers to stay in power then we don't deserve to be in power.

[BlueJazz]

16. I agree....As one who speaks to a lot of folks everyday in my..

...line of work, I constantly hear the anger of "Joe Six-pack" expressed
regarding giving Illegals a free pass.

This is one item on the table that can only cost the Democratic party TONS of Votes.
I certainly don't know or can resolve the answer to this issue but giving a group of people who are here illegally is not the answer to this problem.

[No Exit]

17. I heard Charlie Rangel say that amnesty is the closest thing to

slavery that is legal in this country.

I think the whole point which is ignored here is, WHAT has caused these large numbers of people to risk everything and (many times) leave their families behind and cross our border without regard to whether it's legal or not?

In my mind, the answer lies in Mexico. We know that Mexico had a sea-change some 6 years ago--the party which had been their ruling party went out of power for the first time in something like 75 years. Fox came in.

NAFTA had passed in the 90's.

Somebody in Mexico--probably the rich selfish class (a small minority), as usual, is/was apparently financially screwing those Mexican citizens in a big way.

Some will disagree with me, but I think NAFTA not only changed our country for the worse, but also changed Mexico for the worse.

To me, the answer lies in examining what is going wrong in Mexico--who is stealing from whom--and seeking ways to stop the stealing. If Mexico can be made more livable for its young, non-rich, working people, then maybe they'd be able to have a future there. This would take pressure off us, as it would make the Mexicans more willing to follow our immigration laws when they desired to move here.

For those who get all testy whenever anyone even suggests that there is anything wrong with people walking across the border as though it weren't there, I would like to say: how the FUCK is the condition of a young Mexican worker improved if he/she merely moves from being exploited by the rich in Mexico, to being exploited by the rich employers in the U.S.?

When I post at all about immigration on DU, usually some asshole jumps in and accuses me of being a "fascist" or a "racist" or a "republican", or some other bad word. Let me tell the accusers up front that I don't give a hot damn if I am surrounded by Mexicans. In the last 3 years, I have taken the time to learn Spanish--and nobody subsidized my program to learn it. I have found those Mexicans whom I have met to be working people who cause me no trouble at all. (No, I don't employ any immigrants because I don't HAVE any employees--not even a maid, which is probably different from a lot of DUers.) I do not fear "brown people" because I think of race as an artificial, un-scientific concept, and therefore, to me, classifying people according to race is an exercise in fantasy. So I will tell such accusers in advance: Fuck off.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that the democratic party wishes to increase the number of its voters. Well, there are a lot of discontented American citizens out there who want someone to at least bring order to the influx of immigrants. We don't need to write those voters off as "racists"--we can at least earn their respect by trying to be fair to everyone on the immigration issue.

[EFerrari]

35. Too bad BushCo just helped subvert the last Mexican national

election. And too bad DU is ignoring the struggle TODAY going on in Oaxaca.

If we want to see what brings hungry people across the border first we have to be willing to look. It's happening right under our noses.

And you are right about NAFTA. It's hurt us AND it's hurt Mexico.

[No Exit]

42. Yes--I was very disappointed when they stole it from Lopez-Obrador

Of course, they had already arrested him (months ago) and done God knows what else to him. In the face of all that, he still managed to stay strong.

While I realize Clinton bears some blame for NAFTA, I am sick of hearing wingnuts talk like it was ONLY Clinton. It was primarily the business-sucking repuke congress that inflicted NAFTA on us. I wish I knew how we could put a stop to this continuing "free trade" LIE. It seems that nowadays everything really is controlled by stateless capitalists--corporations and people who are entities unto themselves (like the BFEE)--who co-opt for their own purposes armies belonging to governments, who consider countries' citizens to be just so much "product" or mere chattels, who owe allegiance to no country or nationality or party, who exist solely for the blind accumulation of wealth by any means possible.

Our whole way of life is infected with the worship of money. I remember public radio as having been a place where one could listen and enjoy art. Now as I drive out in the mornings, invariably, on public radio, I am met with "stock market watch" or "business news", blah blah blah. When I was a child, we ridiculed TV ads for things like detergent or aspirin. I actually miss those ads--they were a sign that we still actually PRODUCED something of substance in America. Nowadays the TV ads are for things like "your nest egg" or "your retirement" or some prescription medicine which few people actually need.

People who, financially, are in the middle class, are encouraged to think of literally everything in terms of "how does this help my investments" or "how much am I worth". The super-rich design propaganda which talks to us as though we are their financial equals--and then they suck us into the world of finance, where we are promptly fleeced because we are not high-level financiers, but just citizens who want to be able to live without worrying where our next meal is coming from.

As my other half said once, "This is what happens when you have an economy instead of a culture."

[EFerrari]

49. "This is what happens when you have an economy instead of a culture."

Exactly.

And that's how you'd break down the classes in the Latin American countries where Us (now, multi-national) corporate interests have "succeeded": Those who have an economy and those who have a culture.

[QC]

45. Will there ever be change in Mexico so long as the Forty Families

have a gigantic safety valve to the north through which they can shove their poor and discontented?

The only beneficiaries of our current immigration "policy" are the elites of both countries: the Mexican elite gets to export its potential revolutionaries and the American elite gets plenty of cheap labor. The losers are the exploited workers on both sides of the border.

[EFerrari]

50. Yep.

[alarimer]

46. Absolutely right

Illegal immigration into the US is the safety valve on the Mexican economy. It has gone to hell since NAFTA, leaving many poor people without prospects at all. The money they send back actually helps the Mexican economy. If we got rid of NAFTA (which would help us too) and started a sort of Marshall Plan to help the economies in that region with REAL jobs and education for the people, it would go a long way. We also need to stay out of their elections. The populist candidates they have been electing (Chavez and the others) look like they will actually help THEIR people and not do the bidding of US corporations.

There is a lot of corruption in Mexico as well, in which most of the tax burden falls on the lower classes and not on the rich where it belongs.

Illegal immigration is a complex issue. You cannot simply round up millions of people; it is logistically impossible. We will not win the Hispanic vote by catering to anti-immigrant sentiment. This time they voted overwhelmingly for Democrats because the Republicans (by pandering to groups like the Minutemen) look like racists.

[mmonk]

19. I don't think talking points about immigrants

should be a priority. It's all about the fear. It's producing rights abuses.

[bowens43]

20. So much hatred and bigotry... un fucking believable.

So we should sink to any level,no matter ow heinous to retain power.

pathetic.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MoonRiver]

23. That is an absurd statement!

Where in my post did I say anything like what you wrote? I just don't think this is an issue which is so burning we need to be giving it priority over other legislation we desperately need to pass. Add to that the fact that it is a very divisive subject and I can't see the upside of going there.

Getting tough against employers who exploit the immigrants is a great idea, however.

[alarimer]

72. First we throw immigrants under the bus

They're not Americans anyway. Then we give up on equal rights for gays and then we throw women's rights under the bus. There are actually some people arguing for doing exactly this, even on this forum. But I think we should stand up for everyone. There are other solutions to the immigrations problem besides demonizing the immigrants themselves or rounding them all up and sending them home.

[MoonRiver]

90. WIth all due respect,

you're full of you know what with regard to what's going on here. If you want any credibility for that spin, post some links.

[bluedogyellowdog]

105. Last I checked, Republicans were the cheap labor, anti-American Worker

party.

[mmonk]

22. Here's what's happening

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2669765&mesg_id=2676667

For example, in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina for the past six months, according to the sheriff's office, more than 1600 people, almost all Hispanics. have been screened for previous violations and over 800 put into immediate "removal proceedings" for as little as a speeding ticket.

These numbers do not include those singled out by the Homeland Security Immigration Center for Enforcement (ICE).

Latino men and women have been taken from their families and jailed, often out of state, with limited or no communication to their families and loved ones.

[EFerrari]

37. And sometimes for months. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Right. Let's just put on our sheets and pointy hats and become Republicans.

Hey, it's politically expedient to sacrifice 12 million people so we can be "popular".

[NNN0LHI]

26. The Republicans would kill to get back the Hispanic vote they once had

And we have people who call themselves Dems saying "yea, give it back to them."

Sometimes I wonder if it is ignorance or something else?

Don

[NorthernSpy]

54. no, they'd kill to get back the Lou Dobbs Democrats...

You know -- the group to whom we owe a VERY large measure of our success in this election.

As for the myth of an election-deciding "Latino vote", I have a few things to say about that in post #52.

Also, I like to point out that on top of the observations I made in that post, Latinos do NOT generally agree with the activists on the issue of illegal immigration, and immigration is NOT a high priority concern for most Latino voters.

[MoonRiver]

29. Why is not bringing up legislation "sacrificing 12 million people".

The hyperbole over this issue is ludicrous.

[otherlander]

91. It's not Republican, it's pro-union.

[randr]

25. The issue of immigration is coming to a head

I hope we have elected people who will rise to the occasion and seek out real lasting solutions that not only benefit Americans today but future generations as well. It will not be easy and not everyone will be happy with the changes needed to fix our current situation.
It is the laws that are broken and need to be fixed. It is the American economy and job market that are in need of reform.
We live in a world ruled by the laws of supply and demand. This system has evolved along with human society from neolithic ages. The basic systems of economy are as much a part of our culture as are the attraction of the sexes, feast and fuck if you pardon my french.
If we see the influx of Mexican labor and the natural response of the market place to "buy low" in the hiring practices of every business that can benefit from cheap and reliable labor as the central issues of the problem, we are living in denial of basic human needs.

[RB TexLa]

27. wrong there will be a guest worker program and a path to citizenship

established, both should be done. This is one of the few areas where the new congress and Bu*h can work together.

[Thickasabrick]

76. And the beauty of it is that it will go down as a Bush initiative so the

republicans will take the hit for the backlash. If we want to see these people come out of the shadows (I do), and become voting citizens, now is the time to do it.

[papau]

84. I disagree on the guest worker program - but agree on the path to citizenship

The latter is the only solution to a 12 million person problem.

But the former has been shown to cause more problems than it solves in every country where it has been tried.

[still_one]

30. I agree. Incidently, the republicans are just as divided on this

We have two years

I think the Democrats should do what will help the most people

i.e. raising the minimum wage, allowing states to directly negotiate best prices for the drug prescription plan along with getting rid of the donut hole, giving back pel grants for student loans at reasonable interest rates, rolling back legislation which gives tax breaks to corporations who off-shore jobs, getting us out of Iraq, prventing the privitizing of social security and medicare, and so much more

[Vorta]

36. I agree

I think many of the folks who defend illegal immigration have no idea the impact of it.

An example close to my heart. Traditionally, Chesapeake Bay crabs were picked by black women who worked on a wage per pound picked. I know, in general we organized labor types object to payment other than an hourly wage. However, this is a different kind of work. You simply can't do it 8 hours a day, five days a week for the rest of your life. It is by it's nature seasonal as well.

Those black women have ben displaced in the workforce by legal and illegal immigrant labor as well as our cracking down on labor laws and welfare benefits. I am not saying that we shouldn't have labor laws or enforce welfare eligibility. I am saying that because of the imported labor, the legislature didn't have to find a solution which would permit these American women to do their traditional work a couple of months a year without it costing them their healthcare benefits. Yes, such a system would be a subsidy to the seafood industry, but not nearly as expensive as providing healthcare for these families in addition to all the costs we absorb (legal, medical, regulatory, criminal) from imported labor.

Tomatoes can't be sold for 99¢/lb without a government subsidy of some sort. We can pay it out for the imported labor, or we can pay it out to Americans. I vote for Americans.

[EFerrari]

40. And I think that people who appropriate entire continents are likely

not to take the larger view such as considering the facts, e.g., undocumented workers add to, don't subtract from, this economy AND such as the fact that according to our Constitution, they are just as entitled to social justice as "American" citizens.

/grammar

[Strelnikov_]

39. Agree. Develop A Guest Worker Program, Concentrate On Employers

It appears to me that (uncontrolled) immigrant labor fills a void that it perpetuates, low wages that make the jobs undesirable due to an oversupply of labor, the classic supply/demand relationship. All the current immigration policy of this country does is create a black market for labor, exploiting those who are here illegally, and driving down the wages and working conditions so for legal residents and immigrants the job is a step backward.

I feel that a well-regulated Guest Worker program will deal with illegal immigration by addressing demand (the employer). It would hopefully stop the exploitation of immigrants and end the flooding of the labor market due to uncontrolled immigration.

Just like the ‘war on drugs’, illegal immigration cannot be reduced by simply militarizing the border and locking up people. On the other hand, we have to do something to protect the ‘victims’ of this policy, the working people of this country who are citizens or here legally.

The key points of the program would be as follows:

- Hiring of guest workers by businesses would be coordinated through workforce development (unemployment) offices. These offices would maintain a set of procedures/surveys to verify a shortage of labor in a classification before guest workers could be hired.

- A wage rates system would have to be maintained to prevent low wages from being used as way to create a labor shortage.

- All labor laws, including wage rates established under the above point and social security payments, would be enforced for guest workers. After participation in the program over time, the guest worker would be eligible for a retirement SS annuity based on what they paid in.

- Severe penalties for those employers violating the above provisions.

- A worker certification system, also administered by workforce development, to take the burden of verifying an employees legal status off of the employer. If an employer takes the step to verify the employees status though this system, they will be held harmless in the event the employee is found to not have legal standing.


Some thoughts on immigration policy from John Sayles which sums up my feelings on this issue.

John Sayles
From:A People's Democratic Platform

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040802&s=forum

The Democratic platform should call for an end to the hypocrisy of our immigration policy. Our current policy, an enormously expensive cat-and-mouse game, most notably on our southern border, calls on the INS to enforce immigration laws that are openly expected to be ignored by countless US industries and private employers. Some sort of regulated guest-worker program is needed.

Once it is in place, if immigrants continue to enter the country illegally and can't find work, word will filter back and the numbers will decrease dramatically. While in our country, however, those guest workers need to be protected from exploitation--to be assured they will be paid for their work, that their working conditions will meet state and federal safety standards and that they will receive no less than the federally mandated minimum wage (which needs to be raised).

Employers would be required to withhold some percentage (perhaps the equivalent of federal taxes and Social Security) from wages to help defray the costs of the program. Penalties for hiring foreign workers outside of the program would be high enough (and sufficiently enforced) to end the black market in labor that is thriving now.

Protecting all workers in this country is an important first step toward the amendment or abolition of NAFTA and the protection of workers throughout the world.

[Selatius]

51. Open all the borders wide.

It's time to drop the notion of nationalism worldwide.

If corporations are free to hop from nation to nation to force workers to compete against each other in a race to the bottom, then it's time workers be given the same freedom, and it's time to pursue international trade unionism. Wherever a corporation appears, so too will the same union.

[NorthernSpy]

53. You first! Open your house to anyone who wants to move in.

:eyes:

If corporations are free to hop from nation to nation to force workers to compete against each other in a race to the bottom, then it's time workers be given the same freedom, and it's time to pursue international trade unionism. Wherever a corporation appears, so too will the same union.

Thing is, corporations shouldn't have the freedom to cross borders as they please. I care FAR more about preserving our sovereignty and our quality of life than I do about pleasing our corporate overlords who fancy themselves entitled to offshore, outsource, and flood America with illegal labor and shitty China-made goods.

[Selatius]

60. Try walking a mile in their shoes.

These immigrants, some of the most hard working and most exploited people I have ever had the pleasure to work with. Working outside in the summertime is very difficult, exhausting work with 95 degree heat and 90 percent humidity in that kind of heat, but they did it, none the less, and I did it with them, and I developed incredible respect for their work ethic. We developed a very strong working bond among us because it was obvious that we wouldn't do well if we divided ourselves along color or nationality. I just resented how we were all treated by our employer, who had "contracted" out the work and had also used college students as cheap labor to smash the local labor unions. Many held the same feelings I did. I know because I was one of those ignorant college students who fell for the PR campaign. Just work 10 to 15 hour days in their working conditions for week after week and then come back and cast such disrespect on my opinion by rolling your eyes at me.

The problem is corporations already gained the freedom to hop from country to country. Globalization has already reached a very advanced stage, and I don't think it can be reversed. You already have American firms who have all but outsourced all major operations from the US and are now present on most if not all inhabited continents. You gonna try to tax and regulate a corporation that hardly resides within the US? You'll only succeed in making them move their headquarters off-shore as well and shield even more income if they haven't already done so, and then they will get the World Trade Organization to support them over you, and they will.

On the other hand, that leaves open the option of international worker unionism and a new collective consciousness among workers of the world that we are all in the "same boat," and international unionism, in the face of international global conglomerate corporations, appears to be the sensible long-term solution when there are firms that exist that literally span several continents. I would say the notion of international trade unionism and worker co-ops is a whole hell of a lot better than what nations that operate within the World Trade Organization are offering.

[entanglement]

95. Genuine progress for the working class cannot be achieved in isolation

The capitalist bosses love xenophobia / ethnocentrism / jingoism, because it keeps the working class divided. OPEN YOUR EYES!

[treestar]

57. Capitalists can cross borders at will

It is amazing how nobody sees how laborers hobble themselves by restricting themselves according to borders.

It's clever how they have pitted laborers against each other.

[entanglement]

96. It's the OLDEST trick in the book of the bosses

And it never fails to work. :(

[Irreverend IX]

71. Are there any homeless people living on the streets of your city?

If so, why haven't you given them rooms in your house?

[Selatius]

92. I don't even own a home.

If I were on your doorstep, would you give me shelter for the night?

[mondo joe]

103. Do you have a room? Why not open it up to anyone who wants to stay?

[Selatius]

104. Actually, I have, if you want to know.

We do get a few stragglers through these remote parts who get lost.

[countryjake]

112. Solidarity Forever!

The Song & the People
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYiKdJoSsb8

Viva La Huelga!

Nothing less will do.

[treestar]

55. It's not that important

And security-wise, it is better to know who is here.

We need a better law.

The average Mexican who is here does not even get that he is a "lawbreaker." The laws we have could change, and have in the past, and are poorly enforced, and they aren't hurting anyone (yeah, I know they're stealing your job, but if you really wanted one of those jobs, you could have it). This is not murder, rape and robbery, this is regulatory law.

Treat others as you would have yourself treated. They are no different from our ancestors. At that time there was no immigration law but it's not as if the people who were already here didn't have the same attitude.

[ecstatic]

63. Agreed. It seems that some people want undocumented workers to clean their homes and mow their lawns

Or is it that they want them to work for brutal corporations like Tysons Foods, where undocumented workers lose limbs etc. and don't get access to workers comp; in fact, often times undocumented workers are not paid at all--they are just told to get lost or face the INS.

Is that what some of you want?
All the while, American workers get to see wages driven down so low that they can no longer support their families?

Not only that, but skipping the line in front of people from other poor countries in Africa, South America, Asia etc.?

I just don't get it. Is it potential votes that are the main concern here?

Are people under the impression that American Mexicans and Hispanics WANT a wide open, unsecured border that people can just wander across at will?

ETA: To those who might say the solution is to make the workers legal, you're missing the part about how that would quadruple the illegal immigration rate.

[Thickasabrick]

64. I disagree. This is on Pelosi's top "To Do" list. The Hispanic

vote is crucial to both parties and ignoring this issue with nothing more than a fence or punishing employers is going to piss them off and they will reflect that anger at the polls. The issue that needs to be resolved is what to do with the 12 million illegal people who are here. I don't have a clue as to the best way to handle that without pissing off this huge demographic. Ignoring them is not a choice.

[NorthernSpy]

65. I agree. We've already tried amnesty, and our reward for this good deed...

... was 12 million more illegals. No thanks.

Americans are tired of being Mexico's safety valve, and we need to take that sentiment seriously.

Or we can allow ourselves to be led by the open-borders activists and the ivory-tower outtatouchniks -- and pay a dear price for it at the ballot box. The Republicans were forced into inaction on this issue for years by their business elite, and look where it got them.

The bottom line is this: the illegals are citizens of other countries. We do NOT owe it to them to let them stay in America. We owe it to our own citizens to defend the interests of Americans.

[mmonk]

77. Here's the problem.

There are abuses going on not only to illegal aliens but legal aliens and permanent residents. The government gets by with it by exciting fear about the immigration situation. Lots of scape goating. People are facing a barrage of hatred. I don't want that in my party. Then again, who am I to say anything, right? I'm tired of hate and suspicion induced politics. It's not healthy for a democratic society.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

79. Preference for those who've already immigrated illegally over those who haven't is wrong.

I think there's a strong case to be made for making it easier both to immigrate to America and to become a citizen (two issues, not one).

But I think it's drastically unfair that those who've immigrated to America illegally should gain any advantage over those who've tried to follow the legal channels and been turned down.

By all means hep the queue move faster, but I think it's immoral to reward people who've jumped it. There *are* some pragmatic advantages to doing so - it's much harder to deport someone than to stop them arriving - but I think it's still the wrong thing to do, probably.

[Alexander]

81. Name ONE Democrat pushing for "amnesty".

That's Republican bullshit, and you're buying into it. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are unintentionally buying into it, but there has to date not been a single case of a Democrat pushing for amnesty.

In fact, these days it's the Republicans ignoring the illegal immigration issue, because their employers get to hire people for far below what the minimum wage is. Slavery is still alive in the US, it seems.

[papau]

85. No Dem supports "amnesty" - and all Dems support border security and

employer fines for breaking the law.

Earned citizenship is not the same as AMNESTY.

[AZBlue]

94. Agreed. We need to feed and house citizens first. And not open a can of worms.

[Disturbed]

98. The following was posted by pat_k.

Illegal Immigration

Controlling our borders isn't really about control; it's about values.

"Controlling our borders" means more than erecting barriers or patrolling. Controlling our borders is about making a commitment to act in a manner that is consistent with our values.

When we set employment standards we are expressing our values. Those standards reflect our belief that all human beings have a right to be treated fairly.

As long as we allow ANY workers to be exploited within our borders, we disgrace ourselves. As long as we turn a blind eye to the violations committed by people who enter illegally or remain after their visa expires, we demonstrate hypocrisy.

Guest worker programs have a place, but too often; such programs have been used to give employers a ticket to pay substandard wages and subject workers to unsafe conditions. We cannot tolerate programs that set different standards for "guests."

To be consistent with American values, we need to "just say no" to the exploitation workers -- documented or not. Continuing to permit predatory employers to operate within our borders will only drive more and more of Us and "Them" into poverty.

Controlling our borders with the stroke of a pen

Building a wall takes time. We don't need to wait. We can effectively control immigration with the stroke of a pen by passing legislation that includes two basic elements:
Going after predatory employers.
Offering a path to citizenship for whistleblowers and their families.

Specifically:
Expand the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to cover every business and individual employer, whether they employ documented or undocumented workers.

Conditions and terms of employment must meet FLSA and safety requirements for any wage earner who meets the criteria that would require reporting under IRS rules (e.g, the IRS threshold this year is $1500 for most of work).

Criminalize predatory employment practices.

Predatory employers who are violating FLSA, violating OSHA standards, and evading taxes must be subject to prosecution and mandatory prison time.
Whistleblower immigration amnesty.
Clear processes for workers to report predatory employers and maintain anonymity throughout the course of investigation. Whistleblowers who are undocumented (whether an individual or a group) are offered a path to citizenship.

Increase resources and create special units as required
Affected agencies would include the Dept of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Dept of Justice, OSHA, IRS, and INS. The Wage and Hour Division is probably the logical agency to oversee the handling of charges against predatory employers, including preliminary investigation, referral to Justice for investigation and prosecution, referral to IRS, and coordination with INS to process undocumented whistleblowers and other undocumented workers.”

Making implicit costs explicit

“The harmful effects of supporting an underground economy are costly to the nation. When we "just say no" to the exploitation workers, some implicit costs will be made explicit. Americans have a choice. We can invest our tax dollars to our common benefit, or bear the costs -- both moral and monetary -- of exploiting other human beings.

If we choose make predatory employers the prime target, we can ensure the survival of vital "underground economy" sectors by providing transitional supports. We can offset increased costs of goods or services to the working class through tax credits. (Should be part of shifting the costs of citizenship from those who benefit the least from our common infrastructure to those who benefit the most.)”

Radically changing the rules of the game

“If predatory employers faced serious penalties, and the undocumented workers they are exploiting benefited from blowing the whistle, we would significantly increase the risk of exploiting workers.

The threat of exposure and prosecution alone will be sufficient for many to revamp their operations. In some sectors, the predators may simply move operations offshore. In others, predators may be forced out of business. As noted above, it may serve the public interest to provide transition assistance or start up assistance for replacement businesses.

Undoubtedly, a significant percent of undocumented workers would continue to evade detection, but employers would be far less likely to exploit them. If the workers are making a fair wage, the "race to the bottom" has a lower limit and the negative effect on wages is reduced.”

We have a right enforce immigration law and deport violators

“There are situations in which our interests are best served by providing an alternative to deportation. Nevertheless, if it does not serve a public interest to provide an alternative we should not hesitate to deport those who violate immigration laws.

We have a right to enforce our immigration laws. When we shift our focus to predatory employers, we are not forfeiting that right.

Offering legal status to whistleblowers serves us in two vital ways -- it deters predatory employers and it gives authorities vital resources "on the ground" who are motivated to expose those who are not deterred.

Targeting predatory employers creates a new class of unemployable undocumented workers If we do not institute a program that offers an opportunity to achieve legal (employable) status to those who are displaced, the deportation and support costs are likely to rise to intolerable levels.

If we decide that minimizing competition for jobs is worth the costs associated with deportation, the number of families who are offered legal status could be limited by entering those who qualify a "lottery" of sorts. It may seem harsh to allow chance to determine who stays and who goes, but deportation must remain the default consequence of breaking our immigration laws.”

First things first

We can't begin to make progress until we impeach Bush and Cheney and purge the new American fascists from our public institutions ((Impeachment First)). Only then can we effectively engage in the messy -- but democratic -- process of dealing with this and other critical problems.

Conclusion

“Our underground economy makes the United States very attractive to people who are struggling to survive in their own countries. We can change the dynamics right now and virtually eliminate the underground economy, and in the process, minimize the incentive to enter this country unlawfully.

Saying no to the exploitation of workers is central to controlling our borders. Radically changing the rules of the game makes other aspects of controlling immigration more manageable, but it does not eliminate the need for them. We still need to do a better job of tracking the foreign nationals who come here to work, study, or visit. We still need to make our border with Mexico as impenetrable as possible, while weighing the costs against the benefits.

We cannot continue to hypocritically turn a blind eye to violations of our immigration laws or tolerate the exploitation of workers within our borders. As is often the case, committing to enacting and enforcing laws that that reflect our values is not just the right thing to do, it ultimately serves the common good.”

Posted by: pat_k

[Jcrowley]

97. I too

am against those bananas and coffee beans gaining entry into our temperate zone.

[williesgirl]

99. Recommended - I agree

[trayfoot]

101. I absolutely AGREE!

The nation has shown time and time again that it wants "border security" and "NO AMNESTY" for illegals! Dems should listen VERY carefully!

[flying_monkeys]

102. They are here. They want to stay. Bush is willing to explore this issue....

Call it amnesty, call it screw America, call it Let Them All In.... I don't have a problem with it. I can't see why we care what we call so many people who are ALREADY HERE....


Really, I don't CARE if it was so hard back when XYZ applied and waited - - blah blah blah - - Times change, countries' situations change - - Let them stay. They are HERE in our melting pot already - - let then get legal by whatever means necessary.


Anyone living here 20 years is JUST as American as I am - - whether they have the papers to prove it or not. Arguing otherwise is just silly in my book.

[Bridget Burke]

108. I haven't heard loud calls for amnesty from Democrats...

But I don't think loud anti-immigrant & anti-Hispanic screams from our side will do anybody any good.

No matter how many spurious sources the "but, I'm NOT a racist" crowd can come up with.

[Ms. Clio]

114. Funny how this thread about the Dems and H-1B visas just sank without a ripple

so much easier to focus on the "illegal" Brown Menace than the "legal" one supported by the Dems.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2703887