I need help understanding this immigration thing...

First, I apologize early if this should be in GD and not GD: Politics.

Second, I have my opinions about illegal immigration and legal immigration and I don't like that they do not match with...say, Ted Kennedy. They seem disturbingly closer to...say, John Kyl.:banghead: I hope I'm wrong, maybe somebody can tell me that.

Anyway, here (for the sake of clarity) are my opinions.

1. People who enter the U.S. illegaly are not good, law-abiding, deserving citizens. Their very presence would seem to negate all three of those adjectives. Though the majority of people who illegaly cross the border do not commit crimes such as robbery or murder in the U.S. and are not "inherently criminal", they did break a law when they crossed the border illegaly. And that is criminal. I do not think, therefore, that a good and fair plan is to allow millions of illegal immigrants to happily go about their illegal lives and then be rewarded with special worker programs and even U.S. citizenship. Perhaps they should have to have evidence of having returned to Mexico for six months before coming back.

2. The argument that these illegal immigrants can suddenly be transformed into "legal" immigrants by passing Congressional legislation sounds hollow and odd, especially coming from the Democrats. Why? Because that is exactly the line of thinking that the Democrats are using against the NSA wiretapping...

Some Republicans say that perhaps the Shrub broke the law, but what better way to fix it then to change the law so that when the Shrub does the same thing in the future (which he will undoubtedly do) and even the law that the Shrub already...is no longer relevant because all is well and the law was change. The Democrats have loudly protested about this crafty attempt to get around a problem and make it all go away.

But doesn't it then follow that Kennedy's argument that illegal immigrants can be made legal by changing and passing laws that would allow guest worker programs, the opportunity after a lot of red tape for citizenship, and most importantly seemingly ignore the real problem of illegal immigrants is the same argument? It is just changing the law to make the problem go away while the problem remains just as bad as ever. That's why it seems hollow to me.

So, now that I've said my opinions I will ask my questions...

1. Why are people like Kennedy so insistent on this issue?
2. Don't the Democrats realize that fighting for jobs for all Americans and allowing Mexicans who have already broken the law to have what jobs are left in America is quite a drastic contradiction?
3. Does either party truly make any sense whatsoever on this issue?
4. Where do Hillary, Kerry, Feingold, Edwards, Biden (i.e. possible '08 nominees) stand on this?
5. What do the Democrats hope to gain in this fight?
4. Am I crazy to have these opinions?:shrug:

These are just my humble opinions. I really don't think I know as much about the issue as I should so I will research it more asap. Because of that, I welcome anything you say (agreeing or disagreeing with me) with open arms and I can't wait to discuss it.

I hope I don't get flamed. I just want to hear more. And I hope I didn't confuse anyone too badly:blush:

Please note that I am far from an isolationist. I simply want people to follow the law or suffer some consequences. I don't think anyone should be rewarded for breaking a law. And I hate to see the Democrats having that as their plan.

:popcorn:

of why the Dem. argument on immigration seems hollow.

Illegals take jobs at below minimum wages that most American citizens wouldn't want. They are usually getting paid under the table so no taxes, no benefits, no insurance protection, etc. The corporatists in both parties know this and they want to continue to take advantage of this virtual slave labor that is in our country. That is my guess anyway, although I'll be the first to admit I can't substantiate it and may very well be talking out of my ass. :shrug:

Edited to add:

Some thoughts from the Center for Immigration Studies:


So, actually, I'm not sure I would agree that it's jobs Americans don't want, but it IS jobs that they are getting paid like crap for because it's under the table. Maybe the reason that Dems support making them legal is so that the jobs would be then pulled out of that gray area?

and thanks for the link.

jobs.

“This is an industry that’s gone from supporting a privileged workforce in the 1960s, one that was mostly native-born, white male unionized workers with fairly high wages, to having a mostly immigrant workforce where injury rates have gone up while union participation, along with wages and benefits, have gone down.”

Recent Mexican immigrants and Mexican-Americans comprise about 85 percent of the workforce at Tyson’s Wallula plant...

source - Whitman College

The other half of the equation. That makes more sense. Thanks. But then why would the Rs be FOR making the illegals into "guest workers"? I would think they would want them to stay in the gray market so they could continue to take advantage of the situation?

MOst of those are probably very legal.

"From backbreaking jobs in the meat -packing industry to janitorial work, the research showed that from 2000 to 2005, participation in the labor force by U.S.-born adults without a high school degree fell from 59 percent to 56 percent. Among U.S.-born adults with a high school degree, participation dropped from 78 percent to 75 percent, according to the study.

During the same time, the number of adult immigrant workers with a high school degree or less increased by 1.5 million rising from 15.5 percent of the work force to 17.4 percent."


http://www.sbsun.com/ci_3629987

<<Illegals take jobs at below minimum wages that most American citizens wouldn't want.>>

Look around you. Illegals are starting to take office jobs, too. Ever check out your local welfare office? When illegals are being trained for new work, you know what those computers are there for? You guessed it, to train for computer jobs.

Jose and Maria are no longer picking cotton for substandard wages. They're starting landscaping businesses (paying no taxes), working at places like K-mart, working in offices, doing all sorts of jobs that Americans have traditionally done themselves.

To say that Americans don't want to work is insulting to all the working poor whose jobs are being phased out by illegals and outsourcing.

It seems that your post is pure racism against hispanic people.

anything to do with bigotry. Just like the port deal.

It has to do with Jose and Maria. There are a lot of Jose and Maria who are American citizens or legal immigrants. What more can I tell you?

...not good, law-abiding, deserving citizens...

not good has nothing to do with anything.

I answered to the OP later and he did not seem shocked by my answer.

for companies that hire illegals.

but I wanted to add my two cents.

For starters, I disagree with your characterizing those who enter this country illegally as inherently criminal. They aren't coming here to commit crimes (most of them anyway), they are coming here to escape poverty.

But the main point I wanted to make is this: There are many jobs in this country that no American will do. Why not let guest workers, or whatever you want to call them, do those jobs? But I get uneasy when I see immigrants coming to this country and taking jobs away from Americans because they are willing to work for less money and take more crap from management. I live this, because I work with many immigrants who fit that description. I believe this is the real reason the GOP hasn't come out more strongly with attempts to stifle immigration to this country. To them it means a cheaper, more controllable labor pool.

What specifically are these jobs that Americans aren't willing to do? I don't know if I have ever heard a specific laundry list of specific jobs and job titles that Americans who can't find jobs aren't willing to do. So if you can help me out there, I would be in your debt. And I would also factor that into my overall opinions.

I do see your point about having a cheaper and more easily controlled labor pool, but how "contrallable" is it when a lot of the immigrants are using fake id's and the same SSN's over and over again?

Finally, I apologize if it seems like I characterized those who enter the country as "inherently criminal." I realize that the large majority to not come to commit crimes. I was trying to say that, regardless of what they have done in their time here, one law was already broken by the immigrant...and that is how they got here. Do you see my point?

I will try and edit my original post to say that.

It's my understanding that many farmers are quite dependent on Mexicans specifically to do the bulk of the backbreaking labor of bringing in the harvest. Americans would no doubt be more willing if these jobs paid more, but the farmers can't or won't pay more. Also, domestic jobs would go begging without immigrant labor.

The controllable labor force I was speaking of is not illegal immigrants. I didn't make myself clear, and it's a bit of a separate issue.

I still don't think that just because a law is broken by those sneaking into the country that those people will now be more disrespectful of legality in general, if that is your idea. Frankly, that law is, at this point, one not taken seriously by many.
Again, many Americans WANT those people to come here and work, indeed are dependent on their willingness to do so.

There are many jobs in this country that no American will do.

Apparently where you live everything's great in the job market?

When a new McDonald's opens and the lineup of applicants snakes around the block for a half-dozen burger flipper jobs, all is NOT well and there are few if ANY jobs people don't need and won't take.

I see the Democratic Party's willingness to embrace illegals as a supreme sell-out of a huge chunk of their constituency -- people in the low-income brackets. A large portion of them are minorities btw, and they directly compete for the same low-paid jobs that maybe you don't want but that they most certainly do.

When every American who wants a job has one and there is still a surplus, by all means let's spread the wealth to those less fortunate. Right now, charity should begin at home.

until they can get something better, but few want to work at McDonald's or pick lettuce in 100 degree heat permanently. They can't afford to, among other things.

I agree that charity should begin at home, and all Americans should be employed first. But its my understanding that there are many jobs that go begging without illegals to fill them.

Because you would have been flamed to a cinder. Here, maybe just to crispy.

I tend to be conservative on the issue of illegal immigration, because jobs that are hardly "unwanted by americans", like construction jobs, are increasingly being taken by "undocumented workers", I think a third of them, now. I think this is an attack on the very working class that the liberal wing of the party gives a lot of lip service to, but doesn't really give a fuck about, since it's not about them or people who give big donations to their campaigns.

Then there is the fact that we are basically propping up the majority of the economy in Mexico through the people working here and sending money back home. The consequences of pulling out that rug are rather frightening and a moral dilemma.

In the end, though, nothing is going to change until we start going after the scumbags who HIRE these people, often without any fear of punishment or consequences. They are the real problem here.

This is a very complicated issue and I don't have many answers, myself.

But, about the "moral dilemma", another thing to consider is that Vicente Fox is encouraging people to come here illegaly and the send the money home. What about the reports of the Mexican Army entering Texas? It is a moral dilemma, but I also see the moral dilemma of hurting America while trying not to hurt Mexico. Is that right? I don't know.

I oppose Guest Worker and as far as I know all Democrats oppose it because it's nothing but an open door to flood the labor market.

What I understand Democrats support is an earned legalization for immigrants who can prove they have paid taxes for a certain number of years, not committed any crimes, been good citizens. If there really are 11 million illegal workers in this country, then it would be quite a shock if we rounded them all up and sent them home. Which we can't do anyway. Bringing them into the legitimate taxpaying community is a better option. It's not blanket amnesty because there are requirements for their citizenship.

After that, workers would be allowed in this country based on their desire to become citizens, NOT as desperate workers to be exploited and then sent home. Looking at the number of immigrants is also part of the plan, as well as increased border security.

Make no mistake, Republican proposals will create a flood of workers and depress the labor market like you can't even imagine. Take one look at the Mariana Islands, Tom Delay's "petri dish" of free market economies and unregulated immigration.

They have businesses and family and roots!
They are illegal due to archaic immigration laws, from what I understand.
Not all but a lot are!!
They are of different races and backgrounds too!
They pay TAXES!!!! They buy stuff!! They WORK!!
I'm sure the situation in AZ and CA and TX is different from the situation in NE.
But every state is being affected.
Schools, health care, etc.

My question is why ARE they illegal, in the first place?
Why is it so hard to get a visa?
Why are Canadians given a pass and other "white" countries;
but Hispanic and South Americans are targeted??
:shrug:

I would need to read more myself and I've been trying to do that.
I don't claim to know it all or enough.

It just seems that the Statue of Liberty must stand for something!
"Give me your tired, your weary, yearning to be free!"

Shouldn't it?
:shrug:

SSNs over and over again.

Do they vote to? Is that the issue? The Dems and Reps both want the illegal immigrant vote?

They pay sales taxes though and all usage taxes, which is a big part of what people in their revenue bracket pay in taxes.

And give us a break with fake IDs. Most of them are hired by people who know they are illegal. They dont want to declare them, because they dont want to pay taxes. Crack on those who hire them, and you will solve a big part of the problem.

Tackling the questions one by one:

1. Why are people like Kennedy so insistent on this issue?
No one person is 100% right all the time. This is one of his mistakes, wanting to change laws to make illegal behavior legal.

2. Don't the Democrats realize that fighting for jobs for all Americans and allowing Mexicans who have already broken the law to have what jobs are left in America is quite a drastic contradiction?
Many of us voting Democrats do. It's our job to make our elected officials aware of this. But it's an uphill battle, seeing as they, too, wish to exploit the illegals by paying them chump change for being maids, nannies, and the like.

3. Does either party truly make any sense whatsoever on this issue?
Nope. See above.

4. Where do Hillary, Kerry, Feingold, Edwards, Biden (i.e. possible '08 nominees) stand on this?
No candidate will have the guts to say enough is enough because they want to court the Hispanic vote.

5. What do the Democrats hope to gain in this fight?
More cheap labor. And they have the nerve to talk about Wal-Mart?!?

6. Am I crazy to have these opinions?
No, you're sensible. Even putting aside the theory that they're breaking the law and therefore won't be good citizens, look at it from the other point of view: The more we allow illegals into this country, the more we allow them to be exploited by employers who will underpay them and endanger their lives, just to save a few bucks. How do they get away with it? Because they know the illegals can't draw attention to themselves by complaining to a government agency!

This isn't just an economic issue, it's a human rights issue, and when you let any group be exploited, it's a very un-American thing to do. It won't be solved by letting them run rampant into our country, and it's very unfair to those who have proudly entered our country legally.

AND A BIG WELCOME TO DU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:hi::hi:

I never thought of it from the human rights angle. But that is a very good point. But it could also be used in favor of Kennedy's plan as he wants them to have them more integrated.

1/ Better enforcement at the borders (this should also help fight organized crime) and decent conditions for detainees by the INS.

2/ Better crackdown of people hiring illegal workers, with penalties that are really dissuasive.

Striking the immigrants by sending them home does nothing. Sure, it is a nice, popular measure (no surprise that Kyl is for it: it is cheap to promise that, but does nothing), but do you really think that the people who came here to help their families will not try to come back? Do you think that the employer will not try to find somebody who he can hire at the same conditions? Do you really want to send back to the US the 18 year old kid who has been in this country since he was 2, the poor worker that has been exploited for 10 years by his employer?

I dont want to flame you because I understand this is a difficult subject. People who dont have a job (I dont) and see illegal workers may think that sending them away will give them a job are wrong as long as there is nothing done:

1/ to provide decent working laws in this country.

2/ to really work against those who hire illegal workers. Fight the exploiters, not the exploitees.

I have not read Kennedy's bill, so I am not sure that I agree with all the details (I probably dont). But I am a lot closer to him than Kyl. There are some decency that this country needs to have against its poorest inhabitants, whereever they are born.

I don't want to send home people who were brought here by their parents when they were 2. They didn't have a choice about breaking a law. Their parents did.

I don't have a job either. And I am closer to Kennedy than Kyl...I will make myself be that. But I do agree with both of your points.

But the people who cross the border through tunnels or over fences are not completely innocent.

THEY ARE POOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY NEED WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY NEED FOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY NEED SHELTER!!!!!!!!!

THEY ARE HUMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

cripes!!

Isn't that why YOUR parents or grandparents came here????

If you were poor and starving, would you give a rat's ass if you broke some law,
to save your family???

:shrug:

I doubt it!!

Give me a break, "...they are guilty."

:grr:

problems with our schools, medical care, prisons, social service, jobs, etc... They are literally falling apart before our very eyes.

I do believe we need to take care of our own problems first before we take on the evils of the entire world.

Charity begins at home.

they will start to enforce a brand new set of laws? They can pass laws all day long, but if they are not enforced, it doesn't matter.

Part of what brings illegal workers to the US is the "pull" of jobs and wages, but the other part is the "push" of poor economies, few jobs, and poor living conditions in other countries.

Catholic bishops in US say they will break immigration law -05/03/06

Catholic leaders in the US have said that they may break a proposed immigration law, saying that "the laws of the gospel always exceed the laws of the land."

Their comments were directed at a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in December, and currently before the Senate, to tighten border controls.

Among other things, the bill would obligate churches and other social organizations to ask immigrants for legal documentation before providing assistance.

<snip>

Bishop Arthur Tafoya has also said that Roman Catholics must stand on the side of justice and equality for all.

"As Catholic Christians, we are followers of Jesus Christ and we must follow the laws of love and charity, and stand on the side of justice and equality for all. The laws of the gospel always exceed the laws of the land," said Tafoya.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_06035immig.shtml

same ass holes that were telling their church members they would go to hell if they voted for Kerry.

and act as immigration agents before they provide you with spiritual and temporal assistance?

That's really the underlying issue here, the government wants the churches to act as government agents!

illigal immigration by providing more than spiritual needs (ie housing, medical care, employment...) than that is an entirly different matter.

But I think this whole thing is a political gesture to the voters, so I realize that that carefull thought must be brought to bear when considering issues like this.

Gee, I don't recall any part in the Bible where G-d commands people to refuse to help those in need. How interesting is it going to be on the Day of Judgment!

:eyes:

alot of people pretend they know wwjd. And that's the whole damn problem.

Why do 45 million Americans go without healthcare, why is there no living wage law, why is there an inadequate social safety net? Is it because of the Republicans in Washington? NO! It's because of illegal immigrants!

For as much as that gasbag whines about call center jobs being outsourced to India, how often does he bring attention to the fact that you can't feed a family on the wage of a call center job? He's a paleoconservative nutjob like Pat Buchannan and anybody who thinks he's really an advocate of the American worker is deluding themselves.

Here, have some with me.

:patriot: :patriot: :popcorn: :popcorn: :grouphug: :grouphug:

I have had a lot to do with immigration and INS for many, many, years.

1. People who enter the U.S. illegally are not good, law-abiding, deserving citizens.

You assume, without evidence and on blind faith with a conservative bias, that American immigration laws are moral, just, and justified, and morally and fairly enforced. It is not so.

2. The argument that these illegal immigrants can suddenly be transformed into "legal" immigrants by passing Congressional legislation sounds hollow and odd, especially coming from the Democrats.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Sections 1 and 5, specifically entitles and charges Congress to do this. Under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment it is wrong for us to tolerate a population of de facto slaves- either we have to deport them or permit them the rights of citizenship. A compromise is the temporary de facto citizenship conferred by visas.

1. Why are people like Kennedy so insistent on this issue?

Republicans keep legalized or try to legalize many things that violate the Fourteenth Amendment civil/citizen rights guarantees in all possible ways in order to prop up the privilege of white male straight Christians, which requires stacking the Supreme Court with people unwilling to enforce these guarantees (of equal protection and due process of the laws, immunities and privileges/individual application of the guarantees Bill of Rights). They call it 'strict constructionism', btw. These are things like upholding the categorical vote disenfranchisement laws that created Florida 2000, the perverse doctrine of 'states' rights' that resulted in the manifestly injust and intellectually ridiculous verdict in Bush v Gore, overturning Roe v Wade (which is constructed on 14th Amendment rights extending the right to privacy), discrimination against gays, the faux non-human status of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, the whole set of violations of church/state separation, the overextension of police rights and wiretapping.

Democrats are the people whose job is to stand for spirit and proper application of the 14th. For Kennedy, there is incidentally a standing problem here in Boston of Irish illegals, 15,000 or so, that forced him to pay a lot of attention to the issues. (Betcha you thought all illegals are brown skinned.)

2. Don't the Democrats realize that fighting for jobs for all Americans and allowing Mexicans who have already broken the law to have what jobs are left in America is quite a drastic contradiction?

Broken what law? Slaves and Indians and Chinese laborers were not citizens throughout the Settlement, and it was perfectly legal to employ them. In fact, since they had no well established rights, it was preferable to employ them. Present employers of 'illegals' are only carrying on this wonderful colonial tradition. Btw, do you know that the Fortyniners enslaved thousands of the Indians of California in the 1850s? It was legal. As far as I know, the only laws of importance dealing with employment of illegals are conformity with Social Security and IRS reporting and payments. Since the employment is not solicited in public, antidiscrimination laws are not applicable. Have a look at 'right to work' laws sometime. Often the true scandal is not what is forbidden but what is legal.

3. Does either party truly make any sense whatsoever on this issue?

There is no right absolute answer. Nor will there ever be. There are just situational answers and good people making fairly wise decisions, or bad people making bad ones. And humane and inhumane outcomes.

The cold truth of immigration policy is that economic conditions and racism always set policy in general, with necessary compassionate/humanitarian and political asylum exceptions keeping a slight amount of moral sensitivity in it.

4. Where do Hillary, Kerry, Feingold, Edwards, Biden (i.e. possible '08 nominees) stand on this?

Guest worker programs, I imagine. The white people of the Southwest would take up arms and revolt if they are deprived of too much of the cheap Latino labor their relative prosperity is built on.

5. What do the Democrats hope to gain in this fight?

Moderate Republicans are on the side of guest worker programs. Conservative Republicans are for no rights for illegals. Either way, illegals will remain because farming and other industries are absolutely dependent on them. The difference is not in their numbers but in the abuses they get subjected to and the degree of integration possible to those who find employers and fiances willing to sponsor them for citizenship. It's a wedge issue among Republicans, and siding with moderate Republicans forces it.

Or, if the conservatives win, the laws will just enable more violations of Fourteenth Amendment rights and increase the travesty and inequality they've intensified further.

6. Am I crazy to have these opinions?

For whatever reasons you prefer not to see the whole of the economic system built around illegal labor, and prefer to punish the workers rather than the employers, corporations, and white middle class beneficiaries who conspire to create the legalized, sub-moral, situation that exists.

The only deep principle in immigration regulation is that the host society has absolute sovereignty in the decision of who it admits. It can change the criteria it uses as it likes. But a society is constrained in how it sets such criteria by another equally deep principle: moral people refuse and resist complying with laws that are injust.