Conyers' vision for immigrant plan doesn't include amnesty

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060411/NEWS09/604110349/-1/NEWS

Article published Tuesday, April 11, 2006

By CLYDE HUGHES
BLADE STAFF WRITER


U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D., Detroit), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told a Toledo audience yesterday that he favored a federal immigration plan that would allow undocumented workers to either apply for citizenship or cross the border for work purposes...

"The program that I favor is not an amnesty program," said Mr. Conyers, responding to a question after his 45-minute speech. "We're not here to take all of the illegals and make them legal just by staying here. We have people who want to become citizens, and we have people who may want to travel freely across the borders and not give up their native citizenship.

"There's no reason why we can't accomplish that and do it in a humane way. It's a small number of people we're talking about. But as you know, when times are hard, people look for somebody to scapegoat," he said...

In response to another question, Mr. Conyers said he believed there is some truth that American workers would take up some of the slack if many undocumented workers were locked out of jobs they traditionally held in the agricultural fields, but he said it would not be enough to fill the vacuum they would leave behind...

That's what Reagan--the Great Republican Hero--did.

A route towards citizenship is a good idea.

Did he mean to say "if many undocumented workers were locked out of jobs that have traditionally been held in the agricultural fields by undocumented workers..."? If particular workers have held jobs in the agricultural fields for so long that they can be said to have held the jobs "traditionally", then might they have already had opportunities to obtain legal immigration status?

Is Mr. Conyers concerned that the United States would be unable to obtain enough food (i.e. that the total amount of food grown and imported would be insufficient) if undocumented workers were not used?

Could the USA obtain a lot of money by selling some land to people who want to establish new countries? Those new countries could grow food and export it to the USA. Surely a country can obtain a premium price for land that is sold on the condition that no future property taxes will be imposed by the country that is selling the land.

Like Bantustans? Or Reservations?

The land of a country doesn't have to be connected. For example, Alaska is part of the USA. There might be good reasons to hesitate to facilitate the establishment of a new country that has merely been proposed and that is an unknown quantity.

If the USA sold to Japan a parcel of land shaped like Chile that would separate the USA from Mexico, then what would be the consequences?

And people already live in the lands you want to sell off. What about their opinions?

Not a very bright idea.

Would selling Alaska to Canada help satisfy the need to reduce the number of borders in the world? Would you support a proposal to sell Alaska to Canada?


People who already live in some lands might support or oppose any given proposal. They might oppose the status quo if an attractive opportunity arises.

As for your words "lands you want to sell off", you have evidence that I want to consider a possibility, but how did you arrive at the conclusion that I want the possibility to be implemented?

I was stating my opinion.

And I did not propose selling Alaska to Canada. I am against slicing off bits of the US that you dislike. Of course, many people living along the border are "brown."

True, but you did say, "We need fewer borders."

Perhaps Canada should be sold to Alaska?

But I was hoping that people would eventually care less about artificial lines on our Earth. And I oppose "selling" land--especially if there are already people living there.

Europe's done OK with less emphasis on borders.