Do we want to win in 06 & 08 or not? (illegal immigration)

This was initially a reply to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2669034&mesg_id=2669034>another thread. By multiple requests, i've created a new thread here and added a few quotes.

Siding with Bush and McCain on Amnesty and ILLEGAL immigration is a huge mistake. Why do you think they really want an amnesty program? One reason is that their main constituents want an endless supply of cheap labor to drive wages down and profits up. Another reason is that the big oil companies want Mexico to privatize it's oil industry. Why else would they go against their party to keep that border wide open and continue pressing for amnesty? Why else would they keep catering to President Fox? Mexico's main source of revenue (behind oil) is what their people send to them from this country.

The majority of Americans (including lots of independents, some conservative republicans, and many legal hispanic immigrants) are also fed up with the wide open border and continued ILLEGAL immigration. If the democrats continue siding with Bush and McCain on the ILLEGAL immigration issue and amnesty, that just gives lots of people fed up with the republicans in the current administration a huge reason NOT to vote democrat. What's worse: losing a few hispanics or losing a huge majority of this country that's fed up with ILLEGAL immigration and an open borders?

Here's a new Zogby poll that shows that even a majority of Democrats and Hispanics support the house bill:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html


quote from unlawfulcombatnt in the other thread:
<"Losing a few Hispanics," is nothing compared to "losing a lot of middle class and working Americans." Kerry didn't lose the election because he lost "a few Hispanics." He lost the election because he lost a lot of middle class and working Americans who didn't think he had anything to offer them. Had Kerry taken a strong, anti-illegal immigration position, he would have beat Bush by a landslide. But Kerry had only slightly more (apparent) appeal to working Americans than Bush. (In reality, Kerry would have been MUCH better for workers, but this was hard to decipher from his speeches. His website, however, made his pro-labor positions more obvious.)>


Middle class workers are already being squeezed out by the right through outsourcing, foreign work visas and unlimited overstays, factories being moved overseas, imported illegal labor, etc. Must the democrats continue with the pro ILLEGAL immigrant stance and also help eliminate the middle class and help depress wages for the middle and lower classes? Amnesty (or any slight variation of it) will only result in a new flood of people across the border. Look what happened under Reagan. It's bad enough that we are forced to compete with cheap labor on the other side of the world (and lose badly). How are we supposed to compete a new flood of people willing to work here for less than minimum wage? An increase in the supply of labor is followed by a decline in compensation. Notice how your wages aren't keeping pace with inflation and your benefits are constantly being cut?

As far as hispanics who are opposed to ILLEGAL immigration, a good place to start would be with Caesar Chavez. He knew the consequences of ILLEGAL immigration. I found and excellent Thom Hartmann article on this:
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/03/immigration.html


quote from unlawfulcombatnt in the other thread:
<It's worth pointing out what Thom Hartmann's implied solution is for "those already here." I'll quote it:
"As long as employers are willing and able (without severe penalties) to hire illegal workers, people will risk life and limb to grab at the America Dream. When we stop hiring and paying them, most will leave of their own volition over a few years, and the remaining few who are committed to the US will obtain citizenship through normal channels."

I think Hartmann is right on target. And no one considers Hartmann a "racist" or a "xenophobe.">


The Democratic party needs to replace the pro Amnesty and ILLEGAL immigration stance with a stance that focuses on fining and imprisoning the employers that hire ILLEGAL immigrants. If employer demand for cheap and ILLEGAL labor is eliminated, the ILLEGAL immigrants will either voluntarily go back home or apply for legal status. Any other approach (such as deportation and walls) is either inhumane, impossible to accomplish, way too expensive, or just plain doesn't work. I intentionally capitalized the word "ILLEGAL" to point out the fact that I am not in any way opposed to LEGAL immigration.

Repealing NAFTA would improve the Mexican economy, and it would help middle and lower income Americans as well. As the Mexican economy improves there will be less people trying to cross the border illegally.

welfare. This is the make or break issue, and the sooner we admit it and begin to deal with it, the sooner we'll start winning again. Illegal immigration, stagflation, declining standard of living, Iraq, health-care crisis, Afghanistan, Oil prices, GMO's, global warming, terrorism, desertification, lost farmland, Africa... all these and many more are the direct result of corporate welfare!

No illegal immigrants because coming here is not illegal. And to offer citizenship to any who want it. Period.

All else is racist xenophobic crap.

... permission not illegal? And how the hell is our infrastructure supposed to support allowing anyone who wants in?

The "racist" and xenophobic" label is crap.

I believe in the America described on the Statue of Liberty;

“The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles.
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!"” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

The infrastructure will cope, and America will only grow stronger and more prosperous as a result of open immigration.

I have no tolerance for the sort of fascistic racism that asks "Are your papers in order?"

It is an absolute necessity. Always has been. No other industrialized country in the world has as purposefully lax border protection and illegal immigration laws as the US.

Our government doesn't let the illegal immigrants in here for the benefit of the working class. It lets them in here to undercut the working class. The Democratic Party ignores this to our own peril.

As for the infrastructure, many places in the south west already can't take it. Saying it will cope is putting the burden on the legal tax payers with no benefit to themselves.

The only time that an immigrant is not a taxpayer is when they are an ILLEGAL immigrant.

As for the Working Class... How do you think wealth gets created? The font of wealth is labor and the reason for wealth is consumption. More people mean more consumption and a need for more labor and consequently more wealth. This is NOT a zero sum game.

... because of surplus labor. Flooding the labor market only fosters a destructive race to the bottom in wages that only benefit the greedy employers. Why would anyone want to increase the power of corporations.?

What would even be the point of having borders if we are just going to allow anyone in? Why not just erase them and become on world united under exploitation?

I suggest you do some reading on the subject.

Their wages have stayed flat as the cost of living has increased. They face an ever more competitive job market because of the huge surplus of unskilled labor. What have working class Americans gained from illegal labor?

Try doing some reading yourself. Nothing you've said makes any sense at all up to this point.

Here is how I read the border issue;
"I wanted to work to give my family a future, and you put up a wall and made me a criminal"

I agree with you that labor produces value. I also hold that compassion produces value. This is a horrible potential wedge issue. To me the only path that is safe is the third path. Compassion over fear. All we have to do is insist on fair wages, treatment and benefits to *ALL* workers. Anything less encourages businesses to prosper through unfair, unequal and unethical practice. To make a destitute man a criminal, encourages and protects sweat shop industry. This in turn will destroy the value of labor. To see things clearly look first with compassion.

was only racist, xenophobic, bigoted, and white nationalist. What I really thought was that I was standing up to corporate greed and speaking out for the American worker, who has no voice in this bazaar, corporate run government. Globalization sinks all boats. Look at NAFTA and CAFTA. Could you use your Christian compassion to insist that Mexico pay it workers fair wages?

Take an economics class. More people do not mean more consumption. More consumer income does mean more consumption. A consumer with no money consumes nothing, creates no demand for production, and creates no demand for labor to provide production. Demand is created by people with wants and the means to purchase production.

In contrast, more workers do increase the supply of labor, without increasing the demand for labor. As a result of the increased supply, the price of labor declines, meaning average wages of workers are less. The result of suppression of average wages is a reduction in aggregate consumer income. The suppression of aggregate income REDUCES consumption.

Thus, the result of increased illegal immigration is a REDUCTION in consumption, not an increase.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

Even if they are paid completely "under the table" they pay sales taxes and service fees.

Undocumented Workers Are Taxpayers, Too

"Recent public discussion emerging from Oregon’s gubernatorial race focuses on, and at times exaggerates, the costs to Oregon of providing certain public services to undocumented immigrant workers and their families. Relatively little has been mentioned about the contributions undocumented workers make to Oregon.

Undocumented workers are an important part of Oregon’s economy. The work they perform is vital in certain industries. In addition, a substantial portion of the roughly $2 billion they earn in income each year is spent on goods, services, and taxes in Oregon, to the benefit of the state economy.

This issue brief estimates the total contributions by undocumented Oregon workers in state income taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes. In addition, this issue brief computes the approximate amount undocumented workers pay in federal Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are matched by employers. Last, it also estimates the amount Oregon employers pay in state unemployment insurance taxes on behalf of undocumented workers."

Check out the issue brief here: http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=issue060401immig

http://www.ocpp.org/2006/issue060401%20Immigrants.pdf

Illegal immigrants suppress wages by increasing the supply of workers. Their "contribution" is less than what an American worker would have contributed as a result. The $2 billion in contribution you talk about is no additional contribution at all. That's simply $2 billion Americans would have contributed if the jobs had been done by Americans, instead of illegal aliens. But once again, without the oversupply of labor caused by illegal aliens, Americans doing those same jobs would have been paid more, and would have contributed more to consumer spending, and would have paid more in taxes due to their increased wages.

The result of illegal immigration is a net loss to the Oregon state economy. Increasing the number of workers does not increase the number of those employed or increase aggregate labor income. In fact, it does exactly the opposite in both respects. Increasing the supply of workers decreases average and aggregate wages, through well-accepted supply-and-demand dynamics. The decrease in average wages also decreases aggregate labor/consumer income. Less income means less consumer spending, less consumer demand for goods, and less demand for labor to provide those goods. The latter further depresses wages and employment.

The net effect of the increased labor supply caused by illegal immigration is reduced aggregate labor income, consumer spending, and production demand. This becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, as every decline in production demand leads to further declines in labor demand and wages.

The only thing illegal aliens are "contributing" to in Oregon is increased profits of the lawbreaking employers who hire them, and the worsening of the economic situation of Oregon workers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

and despite your seeming ability to toss around the language, the arguments are unpersuasive, and belie a shallow understanding of how the economy works in real life.

If you read the issue brief- you'll see that not only are undocumented workers paying bigh money into the system- they're receiving few services (aside from public education) in return. Any way you look at it, That's a large net gain for the taxpayers of Oregon.

Moreover- certain sectors of the Oregon economy are reliant on migrant workers. Farmers, growers and packers would NOT be competitive in a global market (here we get back to NAFTA & the WTO- which are some of the root causes of immigration). Without these workers (or in some cases even WITH them), whole operations become uneconomic. Growers in some cases have taken the drastic steps of actually cutting down their orchards and others simply stop tending them- the margins are just too tight to be worth the effort.

That's exceptional poor long term planning in an era of petroleum depletion.

I think the nationalistic bottom line is abundantly clear to people reading your writings- or should I call that sophistry.

I make no apologies for putting the wellbeing of my fellow American workers above that of Corporate America and illegal immigrants.

If farmers paid higher wages to their workers, it would increase the cost of produce little. In fact, according to the New York Times, increasing the average farm worker wage would add only 2-3 cents per dollar to the cost of produce. Thus hiring Americans at a higher wage would raise produce costs very little. Below is a chart detailing this effect along with some other illegal immigration statistics.




As for my "strange" ideas, they fall into the category of accepted supply-and-demand theory, as well as simple common sense. Trying to claim that increasing the supply of labor doesn't drive wages down is ludicrous. And if the average workers wages go down, so does the sum total of labor income. That subtracts from taxable income, and worsens the living conditions of all workers. Again, it helps only the wealthy few who exploit the cheap labor, while hurting everyone else.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

before you start making your claims that illegals are driving down wages on the farm. Most people would start with the Department Of Labor.

The following are examples of employees exempt from both the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements:

Executive, administrative, and professional employees (including teachers and academic administrative personnel in elementary and secondary schools), outside sales employees, and certain skilled computer professionals (as defined in the Department of Labor's regulations); 1

Employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments;

Employees of certain small newspapers and switchboard operators of small telephone companies;

Seamen employed on foreign vessels;

Employees engaged in fishing operations;

Employees engaged in newspaper delivery;

Farm workers employed on small farms (i.e., those that used less than 500 "man‑days" of farm labor in any calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year); and

Casual babysitters and persons employed as companions to the elderly or infirm.
The following are examples of employees exempt from the overtime pay requirements only:

Certain commissioned employees of retail or service establishments;

Auto, truck, trailer, farm implement, boat, or aircraft salespersons employed by non‑manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in selling these items to ultimate purchasers;

Auto, truck, or farm implement parts‑clerks and mechanics employed by non‑manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in selling these items to ultimate purchasers;

Railroad and air carrier employees, taxi drivers, certain employees of motor carriers, seamen on American vessels, and local delivery employees paid on approved trip rate plans;

Announcers, news editors, and chief engineers of certain non‑metropolitan broadcasting stations;

Domestic service workers who reside in their employers' residences;

Employees of motion picture theaters; and

Farmworkers.
Certain employees may be partially exempt from the overtime pay requirements. These include:

Employees engaged in certain operations on agricultural commodities and employees of certain bulk petroleum distributors;

Employees of hospitals and residential care establishments that have agreements with the employees that they will work 14‑day periods in lieu of 7‑day workweeks (if the employees are paid overtime premium pay within the requirements of the Act for all hours worked over eight in a day or 80 in the 14‑day work period, whichever is the greater number of overtime hours); and

Employees who lack a high school diploma, or who have not completed the eighth grade, who spend part of their workweeks in remedial reading or training in other basic skills that are not job‑specific. Employers may require such employees to engage in these activities up to 10 hours in a workweek. Employers must pay normal wages for the hours spent in such training but need not pay overtime premium pay for training hours.

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/minwage.htm

puts the topic into perspective. The simplistic view held by some here, and their addiction to bringing up the race card whenever confronted with logic will help only the repugs who back the house. Ignorance will give the elections away, and while we'll be stuck in neocon hell for another four years, the open the door and let them all in crowd will have their selfish pride intact. That should make everything a-ok for everybody. No wonder the dems can't win. The repugs play us like a fiddle. My adamant o2. Thanks.:nopity:
quickesst

It looks like they're playing the race card even earlier in this post. Apparently they've already run out of other arguments.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

Tell me...Mexico has FAR more restrictions on immigrants and visitors than we do. So do they practice "fascistic racism" too? I think not...they, like us, just want to protect their interests. There are ways to come here legally. And let's not forget that there are people out there that would like to wipe each and every American "infidel" off the face of the earth. Would you want to open the borders to them too....because they seek the freedom to kill us?

Like I think the OP was getting at: Any politician who shares a trace of your views is going to get crucified in the polls....

And yes, any nation that will not allow you to come or go as you please is fascistic to a greater or lesser degree.

...the whole world is fascist? What a load of...

Er...wait - you know, you may be on to something! ;)

Seriously though...that's a pretty 'extreme' way of looking at things. Kinda like the opposite end of the spectrum of those that say "deport 'em all and seal the borders down!"

Calling people "fascists," "racists," and "xenophobes" is convincing no one here of anything, other than that you have no other arguments.

I have no tolerance for those who hate American workers and the American middle class and advocate their destruction so they can profiteer off cheap labor, while hiding behind absurd, unsupported charges of "xenophobia" and "racism."

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

Hear, hear! I've enjoyed your posts for a long time, unlawflcombatnt. :toast: :thumbsup:

area51,

Thank you. I appreciate your comments.

I know you may find this hard to believe, but there are plenty of us who are not corporate profiteers who would prefer a reasonable, practicable, and humane immigration policy. We believe the best way to deal with the issue is to integrate these workers into our society as full-fledged members with rights. Workers need to stick together, not be split by nationalist chest-thumpers.

Most of us here believe advocating amnesty and guest workers are aiding and abetting Bush and Corporate America in its quest to drive wages down by increasing the labor supply.

Most of us here don't understand why you don't care about this. We wonder why you side with Bush, McCain, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Corporate America on this issue, when their obvious goal is to suppress American wages to increase Corporate profits. Most of us don't understand why you put the wellbeing of illegal immigrants above that of your law-abiding countrymen.

Most of us don't understand why you spend all of your efforts concocting arguments to support your point of view, and none of your time reading anything that conflicts with your pre-conceived notions. Most of us don't understand why you call us bigots, racists, xenophobes, and white supremacists, when you know that is not the case. Most of us don't understand why you continue to call names, while we are not doing the same to you.

Most of us don't understand why you continue to post knowingly false arguments, like "why don't we go after the employers," when we have clearly advocated such action.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

Interesting that the 9/11 hijackers got into this country by waltzing throught the canadien border. What border are the immigration fanatics going gaga over? Of course!!!! The one where all the brown people cross!!!!!

These people are either bigots themselves or are unkowingly swayed by the arguments of other bigots. Democrats would be wise to not allow these people an edge to become the voice of this party. Illegal immigration is not a "slam dunk" issue that both sides should fall in line over.

If it was labor they were so concerned about they would focus on exploitation. The problems that have arisen with this debate is it echoes white nationalism. It is WHITE NATIONALISM!!!!! The focus should be on full workers rights to all working on American soil and how to extend that peacefully to other countries who exploit labor.

Plain and simple!!!!!

the race card. No, it's not as simple as racism.

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

Its what happens I guess when you receive your due comeupance. I have never been wrong about this.

Perhaps you should also stop claiming to speak for labor. The AFL-CIO's position is strongly at odds with yours. They are also another "Amnesty Program" as well!!!!

What Union Members Should Know About . . .
The AFL-CIO Policy on Immigration

The AFL-CIO proudly stands on the side of
immigrant workers. Immigrant workers are an
extremely important part of our nation’s economy,
our nation’s union movement and our nation’s
communities. In many ways, the new AFL-CIO
immigration policy signals a return of the union
movement to its historical roots. It is increasingly clear
that if the United States is to have an immigration
system that really works, it must be simultaneously
orderly, responsible and fair. The policies of both the
AFL-CIO and our country must reflect those goals.


The United States is a nation of laws. This means the
federal government has the sovereign authority and
constitutional responsibility to set and enforce limits
on immigration. It also means our government has
the obligation to enact and enforce laws in ways that
respect due process and civil liberties, safeguard
public health and safety and protect the rights and
opportunities of workers.


The current system is broken

Unfortunately, the current system of immigration
enforcement, while failing to stop the flow of
undocumented people into the United States, is
causing workplace discrimination against
immigrants and minorities, particularly
undocumented workers. The current system leaves
unpunished unscrupulous employers who exploit
undocumented workers and retaliate against them
when they join with other workers to assert their
rights, thus denying labor rights for all workers.


This system of workplace immigration enforcement
in the United States, with its emphasis on the I-9
system, is broken, targets workers instead of the
egregious employers who exploit them and needs to
be fixed.

Labor’s principles

We believe the following principles should form our
national immigration policy. Specifically:

• Undocumented workers and their families
make enormous contributions to their communities
and workplaces and should be provided
permanent legal status through a new legalization
program;
• Employer sanctions and the I-9 system should
be replaced with a system that targets and
criminalizes employers who recruit undocumented
workers from abroad for economic
gain;
• Immigrant workers should have full workplace
rights, including the right to organize and protections
for whistle-blowers;
• Government safety net benefits are important
for all workers, and those unfairly taken away
by Congress in 1996 should be restored.
• Labor and business together should design
mechanisms to meet legitimate needs for new
workers without compromising the rights and
opportunities of workers already here; and
• Guest worker programs should be reformed
but not expanded.

The AFL-CIO supports a broad legalization program
that makes no distinction based on country of origin
and that allows undocumented workers and their
families who have been working hard, paying taxes
and contributing to their communities the
Defending the Rights of Immigrant Workers
opportunity to adjust to permanent legal resident
status. We should recognize that one of the reasons
for undocumented immigration is that our current
legal immigration system for family members and
for workers is in shamefully bad shape. A broad
legalization program providing permanent residence
status, rather than a large new guest worker program,
should be the focus of our efforts.

The AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions will work
vigilantly with our coalition partners representing the
immigrant, ethnic, faith and civil rights communities
to ensure that comprehensive legislation providing
for legalization and the enforcement of workplace
rights for all workers is introduced in Congress and
ultimately signed into law.

History has proven that mistreatment of one group in
a workplace ultimately will lead to the mistreatment
of all workers. We must be mindful of and learn
from the history of oppression that many U.S.
workers have faced, in particular the long struggle of
African American workers. All workers must
understand the difference that unions make for
workers, whether it is a living wage, better benefits
or a safer work environment.

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/civilrights/immigration/up...

And you still refuse to acknowledge that you were either wrong about my being a member of the Reform Party, or that you flagrantly lied about it.

You continue with your hate-filled, race-baiting rhetoric without realizing what an illogical ranter you sound like.

You've posted the same (or a similar) AFL-CIO passage twice. Once again, the AFL-CIO has never been weaker. Many American workers distrust the AFL-CIO, and their sell-out of American workers on the illegal immigration issue is part of the reason.

The AFL-CIO has a dwindling membership because American workers have lost faith in them.

You need to get some new material. And you might consider writing some of your own material, instead of just regurgitating someone else's writing. :puke:


Maybe you could think of still another way to call those who disagree with you a "racist."

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

It's not often that I support anything Bush is behind, but the Senate bill is far, far better than the House bill. The House bill is nothing but fences and felonies. I'm not voting for more fences and more felonies, thank you.

I'm not voting for amnesty or guest workers. We don't need either one. What we do need is employer prosecution for illegal hiring. And the main benefactors of Bush's amnesty plan are the employers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

If you are a person in a group that is being discriminated against, and you notice the discrimination, and you speak out, you are open to attack for playing the "race card".

This one specific example of the denial of racial discrimination is so carefully crafted, to be the trump card. It is the supreme argument in the most hideous displays of bigotry, even useful in defending the shame and horror of the Katrina aftermath. Nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to be horrified by, those folks who think it is racist are just playing the "race card". That is how the trump card is played.

What better way to hide one's own bigotry from themselves? Accuse the object of their bigotry of something much worse, accuse them of pretending to be harmed, accuse them of feigning injury. That way the moral superiority of their bigotry and hate can be maintained, they win the high ground in their minds.

This same technique is used in arguments against affirmative action, pretending to speak for a level playing field, yet willfully ignoring all evidence that the playing field is not level by any honest standard.

Bigots have gotten pretty good at making their arguments for their behavior. I would offer that there are two things that do not seem interchangeable to me when discussing this topic. Xenophobia or fear of others not like ourselves is different than racism or the belief that one race is superior or inferior to the other.

In many cases, people are covering their fears. The fears, I believe are natural artifacts of evolution, no more significant than being right or left handed, or having blue eyes. It is how this fear is vulnerable to predation upon the human psyche by folks with nefarious purposes that is dangerous.


this post is inspired by an article by Tim Wise, What Kind of Card is Race
http://www.counterpunch.org/wise04242006.html

see it as an economic issue in which wages are depressed by corporate demand for cheap labor. We want to see employers sanctioned for hiring illegals rather than paying a fair wage. For this, we are called racist and xenophobic.

Conditions in this country are very different now from when we welcomed unlimited immigrants who helped make us a great nation. Now competition for jobs is a much bigger issue. The rich don't want to share the profits with labor, so they demand more Visas, more immigrants. Every nation controls its borders. Our workers deserve the same protection from an oversupply of labor that all other industrialized nations provide for their workers.

I don't understand the moral superiority involved in judging people by where they were born. I understand the argument that they broke the law and that others didn't, in order to get here. So the question for me is a different one. It is, "how many of us would be here if we were not born here?"

I wouldn't make a judgement based merely on a belief that some folks have a birthright to a higher morality, just by the opportunity of where they were born. This land, as far I can tell, is special in that there is an understanding that we are all born the same, with equal protection under the law.

Many people have historically come to this country without papers. This seems to be the heart of the immigration issue. If they are furnished with papers they are to be embraced, if they are refused papers they are to be reviled. This says nothing about the people themselves, but volumes about about folks who judge them on these grounds.

It does seem xenophobic or bigoted to assume a different set of principles for a certain group of people. It is difficult to get my head around it. Once they are here, they enjoy the land oportunity just like everyone else, AFAIC. There is no other way to look at it and still be true to the ideals that the nation is founded on (yet never realized). We should work toward that more perfect union.

me, call me names, and say I think I'm superior because I was born here. I don't think globalization is the road to a better world for all. It is the road to more wealth for the already rich and more poverty for workers all over the world. I want to save a way of life I grew up with. That doesn't make me racist or afraid. It makes me realistic.

I thought I was just being realistic, too.

And in fact I was generalizing about how I percieve some other points of view. If the generalization is offensive, well perhaps I could try to pretty it up a little, or try not to do that. I don't know how though, just trying to call em as I see em.

When you speak negatively of needing "papers" as though invoking some Nazi reference, do you mean to say that all should come and go freely? Are you looking for something more like the North American Union described in this article?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COR20060521&articleId=2491

I admit I'm not wild about the author, but I'm curious if this plan endorsed by the Council on Foreign Relations is something you would approve.

Also, do you speak from personal experience? It's fine if you prefer not to say, but I often wonder if the people busy calling me names have ever lived in areas heavily impacted by illegal immigration.

I have competed for jobs with illegals. I worked in restaurants and kitchens for a long time in San Diego. I did earn better than minimum wage most of the time, but was still earning about the same as some of the folks with a lot more seniority that were undocumented.

I am adamantly opposed to any form of militarizing the border. This is a mistake of unimaginable proportions. Civilian law enforcement can and should secure the borders to whatever extent they are closed, but I would prefer maintaining relatively open borders.

Erasing the borders seems to be at odds with a plan to share a common currency.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=15017

The Amero (or whatever) seems a lot more nefarious to me than borders and immigration. Opening or closing the borders accomplishes nothing, really, unless we make Mexico and Canada states in the union, and then we would still end up with borders with some other countries, and so on and so forth.

The article you reference, also by Corsi, says that open borders AND a shared currency are both part of the goal of a North American Union. Yet you say, "Erasing the borders seems to be at odds with a plan to share a common currency." Is this a mistake?

When you competed with illegals for kitchen work in San Diego, were you supporting yourself? Again, you don't have to say, but I'm wondering if you had the pressure of trying to pay rent, buy a house, anything like that. Aside from the economics of the issue, although I doubt you'll believe it, I certainly feel for the immigrants being exploited by employers. Once again, it is the employers I would like to see punished.

But I think our disagreement goes much deeper. You and I want different kinds of worlds. I want my government to value labor, not to force its citizens to compete with immigrants who work for less. In my view, this amounts to government by corporations. In that sort of world, the middle class will not thrive.

I suspect we could go on about this for some time and never come any closer in our views. I have tried to see your view and explain mine. Honestly, with the exception of a few rare moments of clarity, I think you have been deliberately vague and condescending.

From the first piece:

Editor's Note: The issue does not pertain to US sovereignty, but the loss of sovereignty by Mexico and Canada, in an arrangement where Washington would essentially have overriding political control over the so-called "North American Community".

And from the second:

Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that “a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from “irritating” and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.

But after a closer read, the author's message is consistent between the two.

The most important part of your post is that you want our government to value labor. That is what’s at the root of this whole issue.

Right now, I bellieve that about a fourth of small family farms are now owned and operated by undocumented families. This number is growing very fast right now, the way things are. This is one of dreams that they have when they come here, while at the same time people born on the farms here are moving to the cities. Loss of the small farms means more takeover by big corporate growers. I don't see how that helps workers, since they make less money.

IMHO, that is where the most impact will be felt in any immigration plan that changes the status quo. That is my primary concern. I don’t give a hoot where these folks are from, I think we need more small farms and not less. The wage issue has many other solutions than to seal the borders. As a matter of fact, I don't see how sealing the borders can affect wages at all.

I read the article, opposes the author's view. I've seen this article posted other places around the web, of course without this note attached. I think this is the editor's disclaimer of sorts, and it actually goes against the author's contention that a North American Union will result in lost sovereignty. So... both articles by Corsi oppose a North American Union with its open borders and common currency. Do you agree?

You have said you like the idea of a relatively open border but not of a shared currency. I don't like either idea, but if the borders were open it seems to me a common currency would likely evolve.

Regarding small farms I have read only of small farmers being forced to sell out because they can't compete with the corporate owned farms. This is exactly the sort of thing that will happen more and more as corporations become more powerful. It is deplorable. You said "Right now, I believe that about a fourth of small family farms are now owned and operated by undocumented families. This number is growing very fast right now, the way things are." I've never read anything about this, and it seems to me that if families who have owned farms for many generations can't make them work, immigrants would have a tough time of it. Do you have a source for this? I do agree with you that more small farms would be far better than corporate farms.

As far as wages go, and you're right, that is the root of it for me, an increased supply of labor will always result in lower wages. This is why business keeps saying they need more workers and lying about the true unemployment rate. You say there are many ways to address wages and that border control wouldn't help at all. I disagree, but if you care to elaborate, I'm listening.

Just briefly, suppose that the supply of workers in the world is fixed. That does not mean that the labor supply is fixed. People can work two or three jobs if necessary. So the number of workers does not fit into the equation in exacly the way that you imply. Do you see the difference?

If twice as many workers each worked half as much, and still made a living wage, then the labor supply would not change at all. Costs and profits would change, sure, but that could also be seen as another benefit if you look at this a certain way, and squint a little bit, if you have to at first. Runaway profits are one thing that could be viewed as contributing to the corruption of our government and our society. Just a thought.

without controlling the border and then you give me this? So what if twice as many workers work half as much? The available number of hours that can be worked is increased if you increase the available number of workers. If you increase the supply of hours that could be worked, you decrease the wage paid for each hour.

One reason corporations have record profits is because they've been so successful at increasing the labor supply and depressing wages. Good luck forcing them to pay more given the twenty year trend of Congress ignoring the plight of the worker.

It sounded like you were asserting that an increased supply of labor would always result in lower wages. I assumed that was the reason you support sealing the border. I was just observing that more bodies does not necessarily equal more labor, or vice versa. That's all.

The only answer is forcing them to pay more. There is no other solution.

You said, "The wage issue has many other solutions than to seal the borders." Then you offer ONE, UNWORKABLE solution.

You said, "It sounded like you were asserting that an increased supply of labor would always result in lower wages." That's exactly what I said, and it is correct because, yes, more bodies do equal more labor supply in the current climate.

In this discussion, I have tried to address all of what had say in each post. You have then chosen usually one point to which you respond. I've wasted a lot of time trying to have a real discussion, only to end up with this "make employers pay more" idea in the midst of a huge corporate power grab supported by all three branches of government. NO WAY is that going to happen. Unless you plan to have a revolution, you will not see employers pay more when they can hire cheaper illegal, guest worker, or Visa labor.

Of course they need to be forced to pay more. The path we are on leads to slavery. We cannot stay on this path.

I made my views known, and I think you did too. There is plenty of room for disagreement on how to move forward, I think.

There are many ways to address the wage issue, through organizing, unions, or government. It must be increased is the point. Trying to elimate part of the work force to allow free market forces to work is not going to do anything. Except perhaps help usher in the 80- or 100-hour work week.

Trying to eliminate the illegal contribution to our work force of 7 million illegal workers will make a huge difference. There is nothing "free market" about breaking the laws and illegally adding 7 million workers to the labor force. In fact, it is this very "free market" that these illegal employers are bypassing.

The best way to "force" employers to pay more is to limit the size of the work force to the legal residents of the United States. Subtract 7 million workers from our 150 million "participating" labor force and it will unquestionably raise wages. And limiting the labor force size is exactly what the law currently stipulates. The current expansion of the American labor force is against the law, and reduces the natural market rate for labor.

There are various theoretical "ways to address the wage issue," but none of them work as well as the free market. Furthermore, if these other ways were practical and do-able, they would have already been undertaken.

"Forcing" employers to pay more is a nice idea. But it's completely impractical and will never come to pass. In contrast, reducing illegal immigration is very practical, and may well be implemented.

Limiting the supply of labor always raises wages. And doing so requires nothing more than enforcing the laws against illegal hiring of illegal immigrants.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

"Forcing" employers to pay more is a nice idea. But it's completely impractical and will never come to pass. In contrast, reducing illegal immigration is very practical, and may well be implemented.

Limiting the supply of labor always raises wages. And doing so requires nothing more than enforcing the laws against illegal hiring of illegal immigrants.

How does the labor supply or wages become affected by anything you are saying? I guess you think if we lowered the minimim wage to $0.50/hr here it would have no effect on wages.

You are so clever.

You say a solution would be to force employers to pay workers more.

I say a solution would be to limit the supply of workers, thus forcing employers to pay workers more.

You reject my view basically because it's unfair to immigrants in your opinion. (Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to lay out the argument.)

If all of the above is correct, then it comes down to whether one believes the usual laws of supply and demand can be circumvented. You think they can; I disagree. Again, given the current economic and political climate as mentioned above, I see no way to force employers to pay more w/o limiting supply.

As yet, I don't see where you have explained how you plan to force them to pay more. Did I miss it? Even if you could force an increase in the minimum wage, which I doubt you could, it still wouldn't help all of the higher wage workers (construction, electricians, meat packers, etc.) whose wages are depressed by illegal immigration.

Two points really, about the supply and demand.

First, like I have said before, supply of workers is not the same thing as supply of labor. They are completely different, with completely different qualities. I am convinced of this.

Second, I agree with David Sirota about minimum wage.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This seems to better reflect my own views. The path you are suggesting, supporting the attempt to close the borders, will only quicken the descent into slavery. Think about the long term effects, the criminalization and rounding up of immigrants, so similar to what other fascist regimes have done in the past. And it is always done with some kind of justification. Always. We should resist this kind of thinking at every turn.

Can you supply another link or a summary of his point?

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/

"In states that have raised the minimum wage, above the federal level, those states have created jobs at a far faster rate than the states that have not. That is because, when you raise the minimum wage, you put money into the pockets of people who will spend it and it spurs the economy. Now, that might not be heard in your book which purports to debunk lies, but those are the facts."

I think this is true, and one could argue that a higher wage leads to more jobs.

Stossel(sp?). I totally agree that an increased minimum wage would put more money where the economy needs it, not to mention help out people who have been struggling to make ends meet. 2/3's of what drives the economy is consumer spending. Given the massive redistribution of wealth to the already rich under Bush, the way to spur consumer spending would be to get money into the hands of those who are starved for it, definitely NOT the already rich.

All these Republican claims about how tax cuts create jobs through increased investment are just not true under the current circumstances. Businesses are NOT investing their increased profits in creating more jobs because the economy is pretty stagnant and they won't sell whatever product they make with that increased investment. They are keeping cash on the books in record amounts, of course not sharing any of that increased profit with their workers.

On all of this we likely agree. The problem is that you can't force business to share those profits, in my opinion, until you reduce the supply of labor to a point where they have to pay more for it. Raising the minimum wage is a great idea and would help people and the economy, but I don't see it happening in this corporate dominated time, as I've said above.

But I totally agree that a higher wage would lead to more jobs, as it would create a greater demand for goods and services. But how do you plan to accomplish it??? This is the question you haven't answered, as far as I can see.

Lowering the minimum wage would also reduce wages.

That's largely independent of the "price" lowering effect of increasing the supply of something. If the supply of any purhasable good or item increases, the "price" declines. That's basic economics.

Increasing the minimum wage keeps those at the lowest end from making less than the minimum wage. It has a limited effect, however, on those making considerably more than the minimum wage. A classic example here is the construction industry. The oversupply of labor from illegal immigration has severely suppressed the wages of construction workers. Construction workers still make far more than the minimum wage, but much less than they would be making were it not for illegal employment by contractors of illegal immigrants.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

Another new article by Corsi.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15497

Nice Graphic:
http://www.nascocorridor.com/

You are aware, are you not, that Corsi is the sort of right-wing guy that most DUer's scream about whenever anyone wants to use him as a source? As for me, I read all kinds of things and evaluate for myself. But I'm surprised to see you siting him, given your views on immigration.

I'm not sure what your point is here, but thanks for the link to NASCO. It's just another component of the Bush dictatorship's efforts to suppress American worker wages.

Other than this Corsi guy thinks this is real. (All three of the articles in this dialog are by the same author.) Was Corsi one of the Swift-Boat Liars for Bush, or was that someone else? If it was not him, I apologize in advance for the slur.

On further checking, it does look real.
http://www.culturechange.org/issue13/naftatour.html

We discriminate every day against people who break laws. Most people don't really consider that "discrimination." Most of us consider it perfectly legitimate to "discriminate" against someone who is actively breaking the law.

Should we stop discriminating against everyone who breaks the law? Or just illegal immigrants and their employers? Why is it unjustified "discrimination" to disapprove of someone who is knowingly and flagrantly breaking the law, especially when it's causing great harm to American workers?

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

She broke the law.

So did Ellsbugh and Berrigan.

How about a shout out to Sojourner Truth, Emma Goldmann and Harriet Tubman. Some of the greatest law breakers this land has ever known.

Ya know, some of those Jim Crowe laws that were broken as well.

where did you get that info?

The fight for freedom should be conducted in their own countries.

I completely agree.

"The fight for freedom should be conducted in their own countries." Outstanding!

more prosperous as a result of open immigration."

Actually, we (the US) had this conversation 80 years ago. In the early 1900's it was determined that mass immigration depressed wages, caused unemployment and poverty, and impaired efforts to organize unions.

As a result, the Immigration Act of 1924 placed a ceiling on immigration levels for the first time. Wages and union membership soared.

Your faith-based open borders scenario seems even more ludicrous today given the increasing scarcity of natural resources and our "elected" representatives penchant for off-shoring any job that isn't nailed down.

Restriction illegal immigration helps Unions, because it decreases the size of the labor force, increasing the bargaining power of workers, and providing less non-unionized workers for unionized workers to compete with. It's the fraction of the labor force that is unionized that gives unions their power, not the total number of unionized workers. More total workers always reduces the bargaining power of workers, as well as reducing their wages.



unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

n/t

No, but what you're saying is race-baiting "crap." Offering citizenship to anyone who wants it is just Right-Wing, anti-labor, Corporatist "crap." That's exactly what Bush, McCain, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the rest of their Corporatist thug supporters would advocate.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

they also have wealthy who do not want to pay taxes or invest in their country. So Fox exports his poor to our country so we can support them and continue to raise our taxes.

When are people going to realize that illegal immigration is a symptom of Mexico not taking care of its own? Not using it's own resources? Not wanting the rich to pay taxes? Mexico needs to be forced to fix its own problems. Continuing to allow Mexico to export its poor isn't going to solve their problems.

That is not racist. That is a fact. Calling people racist or xenophobic because they see the problem as more than the mere symptom of illegal immigration is ignorant. And it's not going to help the democratic party earn any votes. Fix the problem, not the symptom.

:kick:

http://www.directory.com.mx/immigration/

Welcome to your directory of immigrating to Mexico!!

Good luck!! ;) You'll need it!

I'm glad Mexico is so "friendly" toward American immigrants.:sarcasm:

And your post is race-baiting crap.

And so is your race-baiting crappola.

maybe you can bake them a welcome cake.

Your characerization is the crap.

:puke:

to Hartman and the Zogby poll. Both support your view well. I agree that the only way Democrats can win seats is to pay attention to the will of their constituents regarding immigration. Real, inflation adjusted wages have dropped in the last five years. Most Americans aren't sharing in the "economic boom" we keep hearing about. People want to vote for someone who will put their interests first for a change. Right now, almost no politicians speak (or vote) for the middle class. I think Dems are in for a huge shock in the coming elections if they don't get immigration right soon. The CA 50 race in San Diego is only the beginning.

put winning or losing on the backs of immigrants I think you make too much of that issue. I doubt that most people who vote for Dems care as much as you do about the issue. There is no burning desire in the hearts of most Dems change the status quo.

Many Democrats are very concerned about illegal immigration because it suppresses wages and uses up taxpayer funds. When 7 million illegal immigrants take 7 million of our 143 million jobs, it becomes a huge labor issue. The increased supply of labor suppresses wages, reduces American employment, and reduces aggregate consumer income and spending. The latter reduces production demand, further reducing demand for labor, which still further reduces wages and employment.

Immigration is a huge issue. And it provides an excellent opportunity for Democrats to pull working class Republicans into the Democratic party. But if Democrats stay on the wrong side of this, they're going to get clobbered in November. The majority of Americans oppose amnesty, oppose guest workers, and want illegal immigration reduced or eliminated. If Democratic legislators continue to oppose the will of their constituents, they'll pay the price in November.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

Otherwise you wouldnt be a memeber oif the reform party.

From your site;

Regarding parties, you might want to investigate the Reform Party. The link to their discussion board is Reform Party Discussion Board. They oppose unrestricted immigration as well as outsourcing. They've also taken a position of neutrality when it comes to social issues. At present I think they're having some organizational problems. That's the impression I got after talking to Charles Foster, the president of the Reform Party.

I suspect you'll find that their views are similar to yours. I know they're far closer to my views than the Republicans or Democrats are.

Below is a link to my post on the Reform Party Platform


http://www.unlawflcombatnt.proboards84.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1137875069

Did you read anything saying I was a "member" of the Reform Party? Probably not, since I never said any such thing.

I'm not a "member" of the Reform Party. I'm a "member" of the Reform Party Discussion Board only. And not only am I a "member" of the Democratic party, I'm a card-carrying "member" of the Democratic National Committee. And I contributed considerable money to the Kerry campaign, and the Ohio recount.

You're just as un-credible on your reporting of my party membership as you are with your outlandish claims of "racism," "bigotry," and "xenophobia."



unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

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

And you've proven that point many times over. You have nothing to contribute except your name-calling and personal attacks. And once you've been proven factually wrong, as you just were regarding my party membership, you haven't the courtesy to apologize or admit you were wrong.

"By the time you're done with me?" :rofl:
I'm soooooo scared.

You should have been a comedian.

Why would you support a party you don't agree with?

And I agree with the overwhelming majority of rank-and-file Democrats that we should reduce illegal immigration and not grant amnesty or allow guest workers.

Why are you a member of the party when you disagree with the majority of the rank-and-file?

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

what the majority of democrats are supporting. It's much better than supporting the republicans in the White House. How's that feel? Thanks.
quickesst

his forum "opening a can of worms"? This is information he posts freely for anyone who likes to read it. I've learned a ton from reading Unlawful's forum, blog, and discussion board posts. He makes great sense, as you most often, do not.

Illegal immigration is a trick, like the gay marriage issue, and democrats shouldn't go for the bait. Sure, most Americans are against illegal immigration and feel strongly about it, but they'd feel much more strongly about an increase in the minimum wage (to, say, $7). The real problems are increasing unemployment, jobs being shipped abroad, declining quality of the jobs that are available, and loss of benefits. Illegal immigration accounts for only a tiny part of this.

Illegal immigrants have taken 7 million of our 143 million jobs. That's not a "tiny" part of the problem. It's a huge part of it.

Illegal immigration suppressed average worker wages $1700/year from 1980 to 2000, according to economist George Borjas. That's a reduction in aggregate labor income of $243 billion per year. That's almost 2/3rds the size of our 2005 GDP growth of $382 billion.

The reduction in aggregate labor/consumer income reduces consumer spending, the consumer production demand it creates, and the demand for workers to provide that production. The latter reduces employment and wages still further.

I think raising the minimum wage to $7/hour is an excellent idea. I agree with you that shipping jobs abroad is a big problem. But we blew our most recent chance to reduce that, by allowing CAFTA to pass. Now the only issue on the table that will increase American wages is that of illegal immigration. We can affect this at present. And allowing amnesty and guest worker provisions to pass will greatly worsen the lives of working Americans. It will lead to a drastic increase in the labor supply and a consequent drastic suppression of wages.

Again, illegal immigration is an important issue because it is being actively discussed at the present, unlike CAFTA, NAFTA, or WTO membership.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

The Senate Bill has H-2C guest worker Visas, the AFL-CIO hates that.

The H-1B Visa ridiculous increases are apposed by multiple professional societies

The F-4 Visa has also been analyzed as another labor arbitrage method

the Medical professionals are up in arms over the H-2B Visa.

It's quite clear that the new business model is to outsource education and training and then claim "shortage"
even though none exists to obtain cheaper labor as well as the ability to control and manipulate labor markets.

There is one small problem, they are royally screwing Americans economically, in quality of life and in the right to have
pride in their work.

What Union Members Should Know About . . .
The AFL-CIO Policy on Immigration

The AFL-CIO proudly stands on the side of
immigrant workers. Immigrant workers are an
extremely important part of our nation’s economy,
our nation’s union movement and our nation’s
communities. In many ways, the new AFL-CIO
immigration policy signals a return of the union
movement to its historical roots. It is increasingly clear
that if the United States is to have an immigration
system that really works, it must be simultaneously
orderly, responsible and fair. The policies of both the
AFL-CIO and our country must reflect those goals.


The United States is a nation of laws. This means the
federal government has the sovereign authority and
constitutional responsibility to set and enforce limits
on immigration. It also means our government has
the obligation to enact and enforce laws in ways that
respect due process and civil liberties, safeguard
public health and safety and protect the rights and
opportunities of workers.


The current system is broken

Unfortunately, the current system of immigration
enforcement, while failing to stop the flow of
undocumented people into the United States, is
causing workplace discrimination against
immigrants and minorities, particularly
undocumented workers. The current system leaves
unpunished unscrupulous employers who exploit
undocumented workers and retaliate against them
when they join with other workers to assert their
rights, thus denying labor rights for all workers.


This system of workplace immigration enforcement
in the United States, with its emphasis on the I-9
system, is broken, targets workers instead of the
egregious employers who exploit them and needs to
be fixed.

Labor’s principles

We believe the following principles should form our
national immigration policy. Specifically:

• Undocumented workers and their families
make enormous contributions to their communities
and workplaces and should be provided
permanent legal status through a new legalization
program;
• Employer sanctions and the I-9 system should
be replaced with a system that targets and
criminalizes employers who recruit undocumented
workers from abroad for economic
gain;
• Immigrant workers should have full workplace
rights, including the right to organize and protections
for whistle-blowers;
• Government safety net benefits are important
for all workers, and those unfairly taken away
by Congress in 1996 should be restored.
• Labor and business together should design
mechanisms to meet legitimate needs for new
workers without compromising the rights and
opportunities of workers already here; and
• Guest worker programs should be reformed
but not expanded.

The AFL-CIO supports a broad legalization program
that makes no distinction based on country of origin
and that allows undocumented workers and their
families who have been working hard, paying taxes
and contributing to their communities the
Defending the Rights of Immigrant Workers
opportunity to adjust to permanent legal resident
status. We should recognize that one of the reasons
for undocumented immigration is that our current
legal immigration system for family members and
for workers is in shamefully bad shape. A broad
legalization program providing permanent residence
status, rather than a large new guest worker program,
should be the focus of our efforts.

The AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions will work
vigilantly with our coalition partners representing the
immigrant, ethnic, faith and civil rights communities
to ensure that comprehensive legislation providing
for legalization and the enforcement of workplace
rights for all workers is introduced in Congress and
ultimately signed into law.

History has proven that mistreatment of one group in
a workplace ultimately will lead to the mistreatment
of all workers. We must be mindful of and learn
from the history of oppression that many U.S.
workers have faced, in particular the long struggle of
African American workers. All workers must
understand the difference that unions make for
workers, whether it is a living wage, better benefits
or a safer work environment.

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/civilrights/immigration/upload/AFLCIOPO.pdf

That's one reason unions, especially the AFL-CIO, are so weak. Because they have failed to stand up for the American worker. And it doesn't strengthen their bargaining position or increase their membership when American workers feel betrayed.

The AFL-CIO's current position on illegal immigration is exactly how not to increase membership and influence. They're weaker now than they've ever been. And their position on illegal immigration is costing them members and contributions.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

The AFL-CIO thinks they are going to organize the illegals.

But the list I made was all Visas that are labor arbitrage, under the control of employers, strong history of displacing Americans.
That's not the same thing as giving a "pathway to citizenship"

There are two modes in the Senate bill, these provisions I listed are separate from that.

In many ways, the new AFL-CIO
immigration policy signals a return of the union
movement to its historical roots.

Sheesh. The union movement in this country started out with Anglos banding together to keep immigrant Irish laborers OUT of the better-paid jobs in factories and mines. Later on, of course, they broadened their appeal to immigrant groups to swell their ranks. However, unions have been exclusionary throughout most of their history because they wanted higher wages. Now that membership is at historically low levels they need to recruit more bodies by appealing to (gasp!) illegal immigrants.

I'm a huge supporter of unions, but the truth is more important.

Robert,

You're right on target, as usual.

I also found some good links through one of your other posts (on DK) to basic H1B abuse. Below is a chart from one of those links showing some basic information.




Here's a link to a more comprehensive critique of H1B visa program abuse.
http://www.dpeaflcio.org/policy/factsheets/fs_h1b.htm

Just another aspect of Corporate America's efforts to suppress American wages through use of foreign workers who'll work for less.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

against the flood of illegal immigrants. But somehow I think there are bigger, more crucial issues.

.....would not have an immigration issue after that.:bounce:

I couldn't agree more that the democratic party needs to take a hard stand on this issue. Many want to write this off as just another wedge issue and not address it. I completely agree that the timing of the issue is suspect, but should that remove the fact that it is an issue that needs to be addressed. It seems to me that it is a strong wedge issue because everyone has strong feelings about it. I for one don't want this administration defining my views on illegal immigration because I know that behind their rhetoric lies greed, and racism. I think that just about everyone here could agree with the logic that if the employers are penalized harshly enough that this issue would fade away. I can't imagine that too many here would have a problem with going after the ones who exploit for their own greed. It is bad enough that this administration sees fit to drive a wedge between us but it is even worse if we close our eyes and let them distort our views. Thanks for a great post.

:kick:

three of them Support going after the businesses who hire illegals.

One wants to go after business, illegals, and anybody who knows or suspects that an immigrant is illegal.
One wants to go after businesses and deal with illegals under the current laws - just actual enforce the current laws.
One wants to go after businesses and work to improve the situation in Mexico, then the problem will solve itself.

Bush wants to give immigrants amnesty and help businesses by making their practices retroactively legal.

Focusing on going after the businesses - in the name of protecting the honest American businesses who face unfair competition when they play by the rules - is the safest stance. DONT ADDRESS the immigrants themselves if you can avoid it - because that's where the real divisions come in. But if pressed, I would say "enforce the existing laws."

The most effective action would be to prosecute employers. Nothing else would be anywhere close to as effective. Technically, it's the easiest policy to implement. Politically, it's the hardest, because none of the rich Corporate campaign donors, who are the biggest offenders, want to be prosecuted. And they'll through their ample monetary resources around to prevent being prosecuted. It will take an overwhelming consensus by voters to counteract the influence of these rich Corporate donors. However, that may be possible in smaller Congressional districts.

I'd be satisfied if aggressive employer prosecution was the only action taken. By itself, it would nearly eliminate the problem.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

If asked, many Americans will say "Yeah, deport 'em." Then they'll go back to drinking beer and cooking hot dogs and worrying about the price of gas and whether their kid makes it back from Iraq in one piece.

The issue is (was) hot because immigrants rose up in response to the fascist House bill, and because goons like Lou Dobbs have been beating it like a drum. And about 10 posters here on DU who appear absolutely obsessed...

10 who are obsessed with screaming down anyone who opposes the Senate/Bush approach to immigration. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between, but then, anyone who can count can see that for himself.

Immigrants make handy scapegoats, though. Problems with education, health care, the environment, workers rights? Don't blame the Republicans, whatever you do. Look at those brown folks marching in the streets! Of course, some of the marchers were legal immigrants. And some were native born. But they LOOKED like illegals! (Yeah, they all look alike!)

I agree that we've got a handful of extremely vocal DUers for whom immigration is the ONLY issue. Of course, they have the right to express themselves. But their single-minded vehemence gets old after a while.

* Legal status not specified; many of those opposed to "illegals" want to severely limit ALL immigration.

I haven't seen anyone argue for that. I have opposed tripling it as the Senate/Bush plan did originally, given the effect that would have on wages. From what I read on DU, it looks like folks are just fine with the current levels of legal immigration. Of course, business isn't fine with it. Bill gates was in D.C. recently, leading a delegation to lobby congress for yet more skilled worker visas. Gotta keep those wages down.

The Democrats should not ever allow themselves to be on the opposite side of this issue from the American worker.

Anything that legitimizes a guest worker program would pit us against the people we need most to support us.

I agree that the best stance is to not address the immigrants themselves and just prosecute the businesses. Republicans are trying to force either force the guest worker program or things like English as the national languge, getting rid of spanish language ballots in the voting rights act, not giving illegal immigrants drivers' licenses, etc.

The problem is not the stances that the Democrats are taking. The problem is that the Republicans control congress and they get to frame the issue the way that they want to.

People are sick of this and they're going to support whoever will end it. It's a much larger point than just illegal immigration. It's about the race to the bottom in wages that will destroy the middle class. Illegal immigration, unfair trade organizations, outsourcing, tax cuts for the rich and a mountain of debt - they all equally and directly play into the larger question. "Do we want to live in a third world country or not?" That is what this is about.

Pretty shallow stuff. :thumbsdown:

I would feel about a democrat's position on a subject that I feel when confronted with freeper logic. This proves the old adage, "never say never". Why don't the amnesty-open border people come out and have the guts to say up front. "I SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH AND JOHN MCCAIN %110!" That's a fact. You can't call it anything else. Well, you could, but you would only be fooling yourself. Looks like w and the neocons are getting plenty of fiddle practice. I sometimes get the distinct impression that those same people touting amnesty and open borders would have no problem taking away from my families quality of life that my wife and I have broken our backs to achieve, and redistributing it to "immigrants"(yes illegal is the word) in order for us to "absorb" the numbers. Sounds like someone has been consulting their little red book for instructions on how to be a good "peoples" worker. If amnesty foes are racist because people come here illegally and take jobs for less pay, then anyone who has ever complained about losing a job to a foriegner for less pay in another country have to share that label. They both involve human beings that are trying to improve the quality of their lives and lift themselves out of poverty. The only difference is with Mexico, the workers come here. In India, etal, the jobs go to them. Amnesty and open border people are living, walking, talking oxymorons. It's so goddamn simple it hurts. And if you think I know not what I am saying, all I can tell you is, come to my house. I'm home right now on workers unemployment. I can, though, rustle up enough cash to drive you to Little Rock and give you a tour of some construction sites that are in full swing, thanks to illegals. A position of safety and no risk of consequences makes some people bold. Thanks.
quickesst
quickesst

It's a very strong impulse and emotion.

and it's clearly evident when people USE CAPS on the term "illegal" throughout their posts.

I'm sorry that you feel that way- or that you want to put words into my mough with respect to amnesty.

The bottom line is that immigration policy (and the economics surrounding it) are rather complicated deals- and not well served by recourse to emotion.

You don't have to be sorry that you think you know how I feel. Get a hold on them runaway emotions will ya?:loveya: You're right, it is complicated. This is a decisive issue. If you're not directly affected by it, then it's easy to be magnanomous in your liberalism. When the foot is on your neck though, things look a little different. The analogy I used in my prior post is about as parallel to the issue as you can get, save for the route the jobs take, yet noone gets mad at someone and calls them racists, who has lost a job to a poor foriegner and complains. As I've said, I'm not working now because of this. Illegals are working in Little Rock on jobs that we could be doing. This is just an example of the silly "jobs Americans won't do bullshit", and I am not going to go begging for a job at a much lower wage than I've been earning, and through years of hard work, I deserve. Most people are pretty level-headed about this issue, and understand what it means in the long run and the big picture. More kudos to them, because I have the benefit? of experiencing it first-hand, whereas they are simply using common sense. Now, if you break a law, you are doing something ___________. The correct answer is illegal. It will forever be the correct answer as long as we live in a structured society. Therefor the description of any person who breaks the law as set forth by our government of the people will correctly be identified as illegal. They're not all just "immigrants". I would not be the one to walk up face to face with a person who went through the proper channels, worked hard, and fought for the recognition of citizenship and say, "Ya know all that hard shit you went through to become an American citizen? It doesn't mean diddly. That piece of paper you worked so hard for? May as well use it for toilet paper, cuz that't all it's worth now." And lastly, what is wrong with fixing our country first, then deal with legal immigration as it's supposed to be dealt with. Amnesty people's view is like loading a hundred people onto a bridge that is not capable of holding that many all at once. But, if you fix and strengthen the bridge, it will accommodate those hundred people more easily, with less strain on the bridge. Either that, or you slow the influx of people onto the bridge, and once a group is safely across, let more on. It's so simple, I am at a loss as to why some are so quick to turn the United States into the largest third world country in existence. Everyone knows there are people who's soul is tainted with racism. That's part of our world unfortunately, but I think I can safely say the DUers that are not pro-amnesty and pro-open borders, are not racists. To lump everyone into that category is as easy as me saying pro-amnesty Duers only want it because they love the cheap labor like the corporations and the monkey. Little broad and a tad hippocritical from where I sit. Thanks.
quickesst

I intentionally capitalized the word "ILLEGAL" to point out the fact that I am not in any way opposed to LEGAL immigration.

Still nothing but name calling and whining about the use of perfectly legitimate words such as "illegal."

You still have no facts or logic, just empty rhetoric.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

from an overall systems perspective- and review the public policy over the years on immigration- then we'll talk- and do some econ, too. And MUCH more than the usual sophistry you've been running in this thread.

'til then, I'll leave this shallow and solutionless thread alone.

many varying views on the subject. i don't even pretend to have the answers. people on both sides of the issue have valid points. i do know that if i were a poor mexican i would try to cross the border in order to have a better life.

the problem is mexico. they need to do something for their people. it was mentioned that rich mexicans don't want to pay taxes. it's an internal problem and there's a lot of corruption in government both in mexico and here in the states.

i don't know that we could round up all the illegals and deport them. but certainly those with criminal records and those in gangs should be easy enough to find and deport. here in arizona sheriff joe arpaio has been rounding some up.

so basically i have nothing to add to this thread. just want to let you all know that i've read all the posts.

or ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT.

In other words, stop using the word "immigration". Focus on the magnet: the Employers creating the demand Illegally Hiring workers.

Did you even read the OP? Let me quote it for you.

"The Democratic party needs to replace the pro Amnesty and ILLEGAL immigration stance with a stance that focuses on fining and imprisoning the employers that hire ILLEGAL immigrants."

You're making a false charge, which is often repeated here. Though it continues to be made, it has no validity whatsoever. The implication that the author of the OP isn't stressing this point is factually wrong.

In addition, I've personally stressed this point dozens of times on this board. I've also made the point multiple times that the most effective action to reduce illegal immigration is to prosecute employers. I've also made clear that I would favor employer prosecution as being the only action necessary. If not the only action, then the very 1st action implemented.

I think you're posting the usual blind argument that the amnesty/open borders advocates give, because they don't fully read the threads, and they don't want to give up that talking point, despite its complete lack of validity. It would force them to acknowledge that most of us here aren't racists or bigots. And that we are not "attacking" the immigrants themselves. That would eliminate all of their name-calling and race-bating arguments.

In fact, we're clearly sticking up for American workers and trying to prevent their wages and living conditions from being suppressed by the illegal employment of illegal immigrants.

It gets aggravating to hear amnesty/open border advocates whine about "why don't we go after the employer"? It's completely wrong. But it would eliminate another of their false, misleading talking points. The real issue is that without race-baiting, name-calling, and false charges, the pro-amnesty advocates have no arguments whatsoever.

Without employer prosecution, all other measures will do little to reduce illegal immigration. If anything, it's the amnesty/open borders advocates who come to the defense of employers. Just like George Bush.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT or ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS.

"Did you even read the OP? Let me quote it for you.

"The Democratic party needs to replace the pro Amnesty and ILLEGAL immigration stance with a stance that focuses on fining and imprisoning the employers that hire ILLEGAL immigrants." "
Yes, I did read it. Now, allow me to re-construct your quoted sentence: "The Democratic party needs to replace the Republican rhetoric with a stance that focuses on fining and imprisoning ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS." See the difference?

When you repeat "pro Amnesty" and keep "immigration" (illegal or otherwise), you reinforce the terms the opposition has laid down.

As to the false charge in your next statement...you're putting words into my post that don't exist. And again with this: "It gets aggravating to hear amnesty/open border advocates whine about "why don't we go after the employer"? It's completely wrong." Nowhere is there anything in my post about 'amnesty/open border'."

And yet, in your next sentence, you are saying exactly what I am proposing. "But it would eliminate another of their false, misleading talking points." Eliminate using the term "immigration", illegal or legal. Turn the tables on "pro-Amnesty" by attaching it with a clear charge of "Amnesty for Illegal Employers". It will have all of them reeling back on their heels and stumbling!

So, don't attack me...I'm on your side!

I do see the difference you've made and the language you're using is confusing and and has less clarity. I like the OP's language much better.

I'm glad we agree on the employer prosecution concept.

However, I've seen multiple posters (maybe not you) claim repeatedly that we are "picking on the illegal immigrants" when we have already stated we advocate prosecuting employers. It does get aggravating to be accused of a taking a position or attitude that you do not even have. I'm not going to avoid addressing even the slightest implication that I'm not stressing prosecuting employers, or that an OP isn't addressing it. I think that was your implication, and I'm not going to even let that implication stand.

And, for the record, I've stated on multiple different posts that the Senate bill is not really about granting "amnesty" to illegal immigrants, it's about granting amnesty to the employers who hire them.

I (we) have consistently been stressing prosecution of employers, while we are just as consistently accused of not doing so. Again, any time someone even insinuates otherwise, I'm going to respond exactly the same way.

I've have no tolerance for posters that keep playing the race card (not that you did) and then say "why don't you go after the employers?"

"Amnesty" and "guest workers" are the worst aspects of the Senate bill. I am strongly opposed to them, and I will continue to use the terms as such.

The problem we're talking about is illegal immigration. However, the problem is entirely the result of illegal hiring by employers of these illegal immigrants.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

... argument. It has become a crutch used by the PC brigade nuts who thinks being not of European decent should make one be immine to criticism. I'd be against illegals just as much if they were mostly lily-white Europeans, it has nothing to do with race for left-wingers against illegal immigration, we are not the same people as the REAL racist xenophobes on the Right. The corporatists are using the fear of being un-PC among the Left to their advantage.

Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.

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

I watched as a good living work place was replaced many times over with illegal, cheaper labor. I watched as American Citizens were run out of these same jobs, as unions were destoried and pushed to the side so illegals could work instead of citizens. It was wrong then it is still wrong today. The corporations are using the illegals but it is still wrong for a non-citizen to take away from a citizen and there is just no way around that issue.

They can try and attempt to paint it with a racist brush but they are only lying to get a dirty win on this situation. Anyone who believes that illegals have more rights then citizens is just dead wrong period. The illegals must be returned home so that citizens, Americans can get their jobs back, their wages fairly paid, their families fed. I am sick to my heart to see this situation continue to happen after so many years of it. It is time that our congress people take that knife out of our working class backs that they allowed to have happen many years ago until today or I for one will not vote for them or anyone else who believes for one moment that a citizen should suffer so that an illegal can work instead of them.

In the end, they moved everything out of Iowa and the mid-west and many, many individuals lost their living so that the corportation could move their companies to Mexico. The corporation did this so that they would not have to pay taxes on their workers or on their facilities. Corporations are only out for their own profits and consider the working class Americans to costly even at our own mimimum wage which is a joke as we all well know. They pay far less then even that wage in Mexico. It is simply cruel how these companies are allowed to destory the economics of a whole state or area of this nation and if nothing else it is simply Un-American of them period.

:kick:

I seriously want to kick some a-s-s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:kick:

Hartman is right on target. There will always be millions of cheap illegal labors coming illegally because Mexico is a corrupt government. It is inhuman, and diabolical to exploit the poor accross the border this way. We should be putting pressure on the Mexican government to help unions, increase wages and labor laws in Mexico.

We should curb the globalization of free trade with China and India to favor good paying jobs in Mexico, that will help Mexicans whom mostly want to stay in Mexico but can not under the current situation.

I completely agree with you. Amnesty will just worsen the problem, and will relieve the internal pressure in Mexico to reform their corrupt government.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Corporatocracy has a vested interest in maintaining Mexico's corrupt government. It allows them to exploit low-wage impoverished Mexican workers in Mexico, as well as exploiting them when they cross the border and are illegally hired domestically by law-breaking .



unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

Today's increase in the Consumer Price Index of 0.4% means that real wages have again declined over the last month. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the decline in real hourly wages over the last month was 0.37%. During calendar year 2006, real hourly wages have declined 0.6%. Real hourly wages have declined 1.7% since December of 2003. Average weekly earnings have shown similar declines.
Below is a copy of the chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing real hourly wages and real weekly earnings. Wages are given in 1982 inflation-adjusted dollars.



Real Hourly Wages

Real Weekly Earnings

The consistent decline in real wages provides strong evidence of an oversupply of labor. It's also consistent with the wage suppressing effect of illegal immigration. There is no increased "demand" for labor, when wages are declining. Wage decline indicates that worker supply is in excess of demand.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

:kick:

Bush's plan and this other thing you're throwing out. This is because I believe in the absolute corruption of the "justice" system, largely as a result of the War on Drugs but also a result of the presence of "illegal" people.

People see this as an issue of the border being "open" or "closed," I say the border should be redrawn.

If you think you will see any economic benefit from any "enforcement" campaign, you are sorely mistaken. The biggest offenders will get off scot-free, a few littler fish will be busted symbolically, small businesses will be the big target, and you can expect more interference in your own life from the cops who will be added to the payroll for this glorious endeavour.

Law enforcement has never eliminated a demand for anything. It's just made the markets more dangerous and less controlled.

I disagree completely. American workers would see tremendous improvement in their wages and living standards if we simply enforced current laws against the hiring of illegal immigrant workers. It would decrease the supply of labor by 7 million, and would unquestionably force employers to pay more to hire enough workers from the reduced supply available. This is a well-accepted supply-and-demand concept.

Employers have a certain level of demand for workers to produce goods or provide services. If the quantity of workers increases, the price they must pay workers decreases, because an increased supply of anything decreases prices.

In this case, the "supply" of labor is being illegally increased by the hiring of 7 million illegal immigrant workers.

I would amend your statement about there being a special "demand" for illegal immigrant labor. It's really just a desire by employers to pay as little as possible for labor. Now in this respect, employers have illegally created a demand for illegal workers. By breaking the law and hiring illegal immigrant workers, they are bypassing normal market forces and the market rate for labor. This market rate should rightfully be set by the American labor force only, not the labor force of the entire planet.

American businesses and Corporations profit off the sales to American consumers and workers. As such, it's perfectly reasonable to limit their labor force to American workers. We have current laws to that effect, and this was the opinion shared by the legislators who wrote those laws.

Illegally expanding the labor force by illegal hiring is not consistent with a free market. However, it is consistent with the free market double-standard that America's contemporary pseudo-capitalists have championed. They want as little competition with other industries as possible, because it would undercut their sales and profits. And they're not the slightest bit bashful about passing laws to protect themselves from such competition. In complete contradiction, they do want to open up American workers to competition with the poorest workers in the world. And they have been doing this with impunity, despite the fact that there are laws against it.

Now these same employers, who lobbied for laws to protect themselves and their profits, want amnesty for themselves for breaking the laws against illegal hiring. Furthermore, they want to expand their labor pool even further through the Senate's Comprehensive Immigration & Amnesty Bill.

Prosecuting employers for illegal hiring is technically very simple and easy to enforce. Simply force them to verify the Social Security number of every employee they hire. If they fail to verify the number, or hire someone with a false social security number, prosecute them. If they repeatedly disobey this one requirement, throw them in jail.

There are 2 problems with this approach. Number one is that it's too simple. It doesn't allow for any of the currently used phony excuses for violation. It doesn't allow the pro-amnesty, pro-guest worker advocates any opportunity to obfuscate the issue. And it doesn't give pro-amnesty supporters the opportunity to falsely claim "racism," because it's the employer who gets prosecuted, not the worker.

But the worst "problem" with this approach is that it will work. And that's the last thing Bush, McCain, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Corporate America want. Their concern is not with reducing illegal immigration. It's the exact opposite. Their real goal is to increase immigration and suppress wages even further. They've simply obscured their true agenda with their "comprehensive" plan.

Bush's only interest in immigration "reform" is to increase the total labor supply available to American business. The only goal from the start was to legalize the illegal workers, grant amnesty to the employers who hired them, and expand the labor force size even further through guest workers.

The ultimate goal of the Bush-backed Senate bill is simple. To further undercut the wages and bargaining power of American workers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

In our government to effect this. They would bust a bunch of corner-arab liquor stores and little grocery stores in the barrio, while the huge employers of illegals like McDonalds and ConAgra would worm their way out of it. There's a big difference between demanding six SSN's from some poor shmuck trying to feed his family and 600,000 SSNs from a corporation with an army of vicious attorneys.

Law enforcement never serves the people, not with the system we have. Law enforcement only serves the system.

My confidence is in the government is approaching zero.

However, the chances of a law being enforcement are far better if it is simple and technically easy. Having seen banks verify (and non-verify) a Social Security number in less than 60 seconds, I think it's reasonable to expect an employer to do the same. After all, a Social Security number is required for employment in this country. So taking it to the next level, by verifying it either electronically or by calling the Social Security administration, seems do-able to me.

The biggest problem at present is that employers knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and knowingly accept false documents as proof of citizenship status. Forcing employers to verify is not that big of a "hassle," despite claims to the contrary.

In addition, employers can be prosecuted. They're easy to find and have much to lose. A real threat of prosecution would reduce illegal hiring. It would serve as a very effective deterrent. Of course at present, there's no real deterrent to illegal hiring, because employers are rarely prosecuted.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

or what I intended as my main argument, which is that the biggest offenders will get around enforcement and the enforcement will mostly wreck small businesses owned by legal immigrants and staffed with illegal family or community members. Compared to corporate employment of illegals, I think these businesses have a minimal effect on native-born wages and are mostly pretty decent institutions, providing (for instance) groceries in areas that supermarket chains wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

Even if a computer check is done against McDonalds and ConAgra that reveals over a million illegals on their collective payrolls--which it would if it is accurate as you say--the government would be impotent to do anything about it. They would have to resort to bagging the little fish, as in the War on Drugs, War on Terror and most other "Wars."

"We feed America," the corporations would say, just as the huge-scale farmers who receive their federal water subsidies illegally, who have been doing so for 104 years now, say whenever someone hauls out that issue. That, and their money, is enough for Congress to scoff the law.

I'd rather have the taquerias open and competing with McDonalds than see them shut down, leaving people in poor neighborhoods nothing but pure unadulterated shit to eat--that's one example of why to oppose this policy. You should read "Magical Urbanism" by Mike Davis, a pretty strong argument that the influx of Latinos is the only thing keeping our inner cities alive. Crime drops, the local economy picks up, and family life fluorishes when they arrive. I can't see driving them out for macroeconomic reasons when the macro-economy is controlled by the same interests that brought them here in the first place.

Obviously imposing employer sanctions won't do any good if the laws aren't enforced. Some employers may well get around enforcement. But again, measures such as H.R. 98, which proposes a tamper proof Social Security card with an electronic strip, and mandates that employers check the Social Security number, make it much more difficult to avoid prosecution.

The point of bills such as H.R. 98 are to remove all of the loopholes employers use to break the law. They won't be able to falsely claim that "they didn't know" when they hire an illegal worker, because there will be a system where they can easily verify the legal status of a worker.

In fact, mandating Social Security verification will work exactly the opposite of what you've suggested. The big fish will be more likely to be prosecuted, because they'll accumulate a higher number of violations, and will receive stiffer penalties for the sum total of their violations. The big violators will be the prime targets of enforcement actions, just like they are with drug enforcement.

Those employing 1 illegal immigrant for a day or 2 will never be prosecuted. Their "offense" won't be worth pursuing, because enforcement action will target the larger violators, like Tyson foods.

In general, I disagree with your premise that the "biggest" offenders will get around employer sanctions. In fact, they'll be the most likely targets. Law enforcement always preferentially goes after the largest offenders, not the small fries. Why would it be any different with illegal immigration?



unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

But the best defended. As in the War on Terror, the enforcers of the law will depreciate our goals until prosecution is focused on the illegal-employing counterpart of the shoe bomber. And I wonder where you get the impression that most WoD spending goes to busting big guys? I think the biggest chunk is housing small-time dealers in the clink.

I just see a big costly boondoggle where some fairly decent people get screwed royally and the real troublemakers walk away scot-free. The only way to take those corporate fuckers on is to starve them to death. Stop buying their shit and buying INTO their shit. The shittier the shit gets, the easier it will be to build such a movement.

I have ZERO confidence in cops, courts, and officials (as they are now in this country) bringing about a positive result of any kind, and I certainly don't think the disappearance of 7 million underpaid workers is going to bring the middle class back to life.

"Law enforcement has never eliminated a demand for anything. It's just made the markets more dangerous and less controlled."

Now I see the parallel you're making with drug enforcement. I agree that law enforcement doesn't reduce the "demand" for drugs. But it most certainly does reduce the "supply."

And "supply" reduction is what we're trying accomplish by reducing illegal immigration. We're trying to reduce the "supply" of workers in the United States. Though law enforcement certainly won't reduce the labor demand of employers, it certainly can reduce the supply of workers. In this case, the supply reduction would come from reducing the number of illegal workers.

And just like it does with drug enforcement, reducing the "supply" will increase the "price." But unlike drug enforcement, increasing the price of labor is a good thing. It means more money for American workers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

Drugs haven't gone up in price since the late 80s, when I first started pricing them. That means they've gone down in price, since the price of everything else, like rent and groceries, has nearly doubled. A bag of x, y, or z costs a, b, or c. Less is a discount, more is a ripoff. The harsher the penalties get, the more frequently discounts appear. The bag of drugs is more of a hot potato, something someone wants to break up and get rid of ASAP.

Enforcement doesn't put the tiniest dent in the supply of drugs. One raid may create a local shortage for a few days, but the global effect is nil.

If enforcement doesn't reduce the supply of drugs, of course it won't increase the price. But if enforcement cut the supply in half, it certainly would increase the price.

And if enforcement reduced the labor "supply" by 7 million, it just as certainly would increase the "price" of labor. Just like with drugs, if there isn't enough enforcement to reduce the supply, then it won't affect the price.

So in order to reduce the illegal labor supply, enforcement of laws against illegal hiring are absolutely essential.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

It's had its day. Next.

areas tend to think this will be the issue that brings people to the polls.

how about looking at the real culprits.

The real culprits aren't the undocumented...they're just trying to survive an economy that has been destroyed by the White-European version of Capitalism! The most inventive and those with the most initiative jump the border and get jobs here in the fat land.

Do you put gas in your car? You're contributing to the problem then. Mexico is the number 2 exporter of petroleum to the U.S. Who gets the profit from that? You guessed it, the Mexican Oligarchy...the very few who grab the gold and leave the rest of their fellow citizens in the dust to barely exist, starve or die.

We have MUCH more in common with these "illegals" than we do those bastards in Washington and Mexico city who use them as pawns in their game of divide and conquer.

When are we going to realize who are real allies are?

I have taken great efforts to speak out against those who treat human beings as contraband.

The problem isn't the immigrants. It's CAPITALISM!!!!!! I would think that those who call themselves Liberals or Progressives, that pin this to a supply and demand issue, would be the first to try and fix that element of capitalism.

We as liberals have always been concerned about humanity. Treating humans as property/contraband just doesnt gel with the ideology.

limiting labor supply? I have yet to see any other workable option. Given the current corporate stranglehold on government, how do you plan to affect change? I live in the LA area and have seen with my own eyes things like 20 immigrants living in one house in order to make the rent or, in some cases, the house payment. I don't want to live that way, but that's the future I see unless we limit labor supply. If you want people to welcome illegal immigrants, explain how you're going to keep the U.S. from becoming Mexico. Why do you think the results of the most recent Zogby poll show the vast majority of Americans are upset about immigration?

There are other factors driving your ideology on this.

Your post says it all.

My post says exactly what I mean.

That is just so much bullshit. It is the same as the right saying terror terror terror 24/7. You are afraid of cultural change. The unemployment rate is some where around 5% and there are 12 illegals working in this country. What job of yours are they forcing you to take a pay cut in? Are you going to the fields tomorrow to work? Ever? Please get real!

No, it's your response that's bullshit.

Illegal immigration suppresses annual American wages by 4%. Illegal immigration suppress all Americans wages, though it suppresses those of the poorest workers much more. It suppresses average annual worker income $1700. It suppresses aggregate worker income by $242 billion. That's $242 billion less that Americans have to spend to create demand for goods & services, as well as demand for labor to provide those goods and services. Reduced demand for labor reduces the price of labor (wages,) just like it does for any consumer good. Reduced demand for goods and services reduces ALL workers wages to some degree.

And, yes, I would gladly go to work in the field if the pay was sufficient. I've already done so for much less than McCain's $50/hour offer. And for $50/hour, I'd do it again. So would a lot of us.

No one is "afraid of cultural change." This is just another version of the nonsensical claims of "racism," "xenophobia," "bigotry," "white nationalism" that the no-nothing amnesty advocates always post. It's all they can post because there are no valid arguments in support of breaking the law and entering this country illegally, or for illegally hiring those who've entered the country illegally.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

who is willing to live on so much less. Vilify me all you like, but it won't change the fact that corporate America wants cheap labor so they can pay ALL workers less. If they can hire an illegal for two thirds of what they pay a citizen, they will. Then American workers have to take jobs for less money as well if they want to work.

In the last five years, real, inflation adjusted wages have DROPPED. And unemployment is much higher than reported because Bush computes it differently than Clinton did, leaving about 3.5 million unemployed out of the equation.

PsN2Wind said it well"
You have to understand trickle up economics. Say a guy or gal that were tradesman or tradeswoman in their native country are made legal residents, they no longer have to work at those minimum wage jobs. This frees them to come to your place of work and hit your boss up for your job, only they'll do it cheaper. So your boss, understanding economics, fires you and hires them for 2/3 the pay. This forces you out into the job market where in order to find a job nearly comparable, you have to try and undercut someone else to get his or her job. This percolates up through the system until everyone is working for less and the BOSS is making a lot more money. Of course, like they claimed with NAFTA, "there will be some temporary dislocations" but the displaced citizens can always try for one of those minimum wage jobs that legal residents now,won't do. Unfortunately most of those will be taken by the "temporary workers".

Ultimately everyone's standard of living will drop if we don't decrease the labor supply. I certainly hope I don't ever have to live "20 to a house." But I know for a fact that I can't compete for wages with someone who does live that way.

just go after the ones that keep doing the hiring aka the American Companies. Talk about that the Tyson's and Walmart's of the world are not going to get a free pass for breaking the laws of the American land or that it is o.k. to ship our jobs over sea. Also say that NAFTA will be repealed. But to blame people for what the money hungry Companies are doing is wrong.

Once again, thanks for a great post and great links.

I am so sick and tired of being told I have to be anti immigrant to want Dems to win. There are as many Dems who are pro immigration as are anti immigration. We need to stand up for human decency and not for what you think will get us the most votes. If you want to win votes why not take a poll on every issue and write that into your platform. Then be prepared to change your platform every time the wind blows in a different direction!

The majority of voters in both parties want illegal immigration reduced. And it is the "right" and "decent" thing to do to protect American citizens first and to make them their top priority, instead of favoring the views of Bush, McCain, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Corporate America.

It's about time the Democratic Party started worrying about what the overwhelming majority of their constituents and working Americans want, instead of big money interests and the minority of vocal pro-amnesty advocates in the Democratic Party.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

I agree 100% with prosecuting businesses who hire illegal immigrants and believe that, that would largely take care of the problem itself. Most Democrats support this as well. That said, such a bill isn't going to get through congress itself. Too many people are insisting that congress directly address what to do about the illegal immigrants that are already here. The two main options are deportation, which is not impractical but impossible, and a guest worker program.

Also, while I don't think that all people who are against a guest worker program or Amnesty are xenophobic, there is a xenophobic element to this. Republicans are trying to scare people into worrying about the country being over-run by hispanics with things like the English as the national language resolution. And the House bill is (or at least was) filled with ridiculous provisions like punishing churches that give humanitarian aid to illegal immigrants. While the House bill does have some good provisions in it, it is being used for xenophobic purposes. Sensenbrenner and Tancredo could care less about the middle class and are trying to rile up their xenophobic base. Again, while the bill does have some good provisions in it, jumping on board with the House bill and taking photo ops and having press conferences with Jim Sensenbrenner and Tom Tancredo isn't something that we want to do.

"The two main options are deportation, which is not impractical but impossible, and a guest worker program."

You forgot to mention the 3rd option, which is advocated by such liberal/progressives as Thom Hartman. That 3rd option is attrition. And it certainly is humane to allow people that have entered this country illegally to voluntarily leave the country without even being prosecuted for breaking our laws. That seems more than generous and humane to me.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

I have no problem compiling with that. the Dem's' should embrace it with some humanitarian measures thrown in. this is a winning idea. Secure the borders , north and south as the 9/11 Commission said. To turn our backs on the american people will put us in a loosing position once again! I have said it before I have roofers, construction worker's in my immediate family and illegal immigration IS a problem for those busting as to make a living in this country. Illegals force prices down as they work for near nothing. I agree go after employers but we must embrace the HUGE anti immigration movement in the US and exploit it and make it kinder and more humane. There are smart people in the Dem party that if they would sit down for a month or so and work on this issue, could make this our issue not the House Repugnats! We need this issue inmho! RedTail Wolf