All who are interested in the immigration issue tune to C-SPAN now.

A hearing of the National Immigration Coalition is airing now. The immigrants are giving their side of the issue and labor unions will be giving theirs. The hope is that both sides can come up with a solution that is satisfactory to everyone.

up first. Says they will stand up to Sensenbrenner and Congress who are trying to make immigrants criminals by marginalizing them.

"The system is broken and making them illegal makes it worse."

"Criminalizing immigrants makes them very vulnerable."

"This affects all working people."

social workers, nurses were involved in the march this week. These are ones that will be criminalized and fined.

this racist insanity. They pay me to TEACH, not to check for green cards.

to labor here. Wow, they could even be terrorists.
:sarcasm:

LOL They don't have shoe bombs or make calls to al qaeda though.

Remember when he wanted to sentence anyone who didn't turn in somebody they saw smoking pot to two years in jail?

Very creepy.

--so far apart in their thinking

I thought with all the threads about this issue on DU, it would help to get some background on it.

Civil Rights Director. The conference addresses itself to human rights. Undocumented workers need a process to become legal residents.

Congress needs to fix the laws that were enacted ten years ago. Immigrants have been locked up for no reason but working with no access to the courts.

committee did not come up with a bill. specter was pissed-- I did not get the full story.

Speaking in support of the immigrants.

They are talking about illegal immigrants here ..... those who came here uninvited and illegally. This is not about legal immigrants.

Just for once it would be nice to see a political movement that works to benefit American citizens instead of personal agendas such as:

Church leadership = more members
Union leadership = more dues but members get squeezed.
Educators = more students
Politicians = more votes

Unskilled Americans on the bottom economic rungs = less of everything including wages and benefits...sorry. Let the law of supply and demand work to their benefit for a change.


Those Americans on the bottom are the least likely to have a computer and the ability to post on this forum, while those most likely to favor amnesty and more illegal immigration are those least impacted. Your motives may be moral but you haven't thought it through that it is poor Americans that get hurt.

Generation after generation of immigrants built our unions for a better life. Immigrants today work hard making our country a better place.

week.

Frist is pushing to do something quickly.

People are mobilized to rise up and protest the criminalization of immigrants.

The Labor, faith and Latino community are backing them.

eom

by undocumented workers. You know that's what would happen

I probably disagree on your position on this one issue.

The two issues are immigration and illegal immigration. They are not the same and should not be interwined. The latter should not be allowed to occur in this country period, and employers who exploit this system and legitimate US citizen workers, need punished.

Concerning guest workers and the need for more immigration, the program should be based upon need for labor. It should be indexed to employment levels, to welfare and to unemployment payments. When employment goes up there may be a need for temporary guest workers, but when it goes down there must be a way to shut down the system.

Concerning amnesty, it's been tried several times and all it does is encourage more illegal immigration.

Why would a union leader support more illegal immigration, could it be they want more union dues? If a poll was taken of most union workers there would not be this support. There is a simple law of supply and demand. When there is an abundance of labor, wages will decline for all. When labor becomes tight then labor benefits which is how the system should work. There is a disconnect between real workers and their union leaders on this, just as there is between the people and the politicians. The leaders have their own agendas.

If not, watch and learn.

I don't hear any debate, only people with self interests.

conflicts with your etched in stone views of the issue.
The other side has had plenty of discussion.

.Why would a union leader support more illegal immigration, could it be they want more union dues?

Eugene O'Neill said there was no future but the past being repeated over and over. (paraphrasing.)

Rhetoric of anti-immigration community is half truths and reconstructed truths.

------- Original Message --------
Subject: Progress Report: The Case For Comprehensive Reform
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:39:07 -0500 (EST)
From: American Progress Action Fund <progress@americanprogressaction.org>
Reply-To: progress@americanprogressaction.org
To: xxxx



by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney
Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin

March 24, 2006

The Case For Comprehensive Reform


http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=1331575&ct=2093045
IMMIGRATION

The Case For Comprehensive Reform

The United States' immigration system is broken, and getting worse. The number of undocumented in the United States has ballooned to roughly 12 million as of March 2006. Next week, the atmosphere will grow more urgent, as the Senate takes up immigration reform. For conservatives, it is a moment of truth. Columnist David Brooks warns that his fellow conservatives may "walk off a cliff on the subject of immigration," fundamentally "shifting away from the idea that the United States is a universal nation, where immigrants come from across the world to work, rise and join in the pursuit of happiness." Meanwhile, "tens of thousands of immigrants around the country stepped up a series of protest rallies," with events planned in 10 cities early next month. Most importantly, next week is an opportunity for Congress to take a bold step towards comprehensive immigration reform, including increased border security measures, strong moves to crack down on businesses that hire undocumented workers, and a path for immigrants to move out of the shadows.

EARNED CITIZENSHIP VS. GUEST WORKER PROGRAMS: The most comprehensive reform proposal on the table -- the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act proposed by Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) -- includes a responsible plan to help undocumented workers become lawful, tax-paying members of our society. To earn citizenship, individuals would have to apply for a six-year temporary status, have a job, pay taxes, obey the law, learn English, and pay a $2,000 penalty for having come here illegally. Nor could they "cut in front of the more than 3 million 'green card' applicants who have obeyed the law." This is a rigorous but fair process. Many conservatives, however, including President Bush, support a limited temporary "guest worker" program, which allows undocumented to apply only for a six-year temporary residency. This strategy is impractical and irresponsible on its face: undocumented workers will have little incentive to expose their illegal status if they face mandatory deportation after just six years. It is also unpopular. According to a Time poll, the overwhelming number of Americans (76 percent) favor gaving undocumented individuals a path to earned citizenship.

ENFORCEMENT-ONLY: A FAILING POLICY: Draconian enforcement-only immigration policies backed by conservatives during the last two decades have been an expensive failure. The undocumented population has soared from 2.5 million in 1986 to 12 million today "despite a 519 percent increase in funding and a 221 percent increase in staffing for border patrol programs." A study by the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies showed that border controls alone have either "no statistically significant effect" on the propensity to migrate, or actually "encourage migrants to stay in the United States longer." Moreover, hardliner support for enforcement-only policies is weakening important alliances: U.S.-Mexico relations have "been in a downward spiral over the last six years," and 11 Latin American foreign ministers met last month in Colombia to discuss ways to counter plans for a massive, ineffective, and costly new border wall. Says Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute: "There is a certain emperor-has-no-clothes aspect to these enforcement-only bills. The only way they can work would be if you totally militarize the border. And even then, people would find some other way to come in." Thankfully, some in Congress are standing up against this approach: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced this week that he would "use every procedural means at my disposal," including a filibuster, to block passage of Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) enforcement-only bill.

POLITICS AND IDEOLOGY MAY KILL CHANCES FOR REAL REFORM: The political grandstanding on immigration was typified this week by Majority Leader Frist. Just as the Senate Judiciary Committee had broken through a days-long stalemate and reached initial compromises on comprehensive reform, Frist announced plans to bring his own bill to the floor for debate. Frist's legislation lacks even a "guest worker" program, and so has no chance of passage. But no matter: Frist was more interested in appealing to immigration hardliners than actually addressing the problem. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) called Frist's move a "colossal mistake." As for President Bush, though he has called for Congress to adopt a guest worker program, the White House last December also praised the draconian House bill -- the one that may kill chances of comprehensive reform -- as a "significant step forward." President Bush should be pressing hardline conservatives in the House to end their opposition to fair, comprehensive immigration reform.

CRACKDOWN ON CORPORATE ABETTERS: The U.S. government also needs to crack down on the businesses that routinely and knowingly hire undocumented workers. The Bush administration has a dismal record on employer enforcement. In 2003, it made just 443 worksite arrests of the estimated 6 million undocumented workers in the U.S. at that time. Even worse, the adminstration in 2004 issued only three notices of intent to fine employers for hiring undocumented workers, a drop from 417 in 1999, according to a Government Accountability Report. "Even when employers were caught hiring undocumented workers, the penalties typically have been minor," in part because Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "often lowers the amount of a fine in negotiations with employers." Richard Stana, director of homeland security and justice issues at the GAO, testified last year that worksite enforcement "continues to be a low priority for ICE." As long as employers are willing to hire undocumented workers, people will find a way to come here illegally. We need tougher penalties and tougher enforcement.


http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=1331575&ct=2093045

CRIMINALIZING THE GOOD WORKS OF THE FAITHFUL: In Isaiah 49:10, the Old Testament reads, "They will neither hunger nor thirst, nor will the desert heat or the sun beat upon them. He who has compassion on them will guide them and lead them beside springs of water." In this spirit, faith-based humanitarian groups like Humane Borders have offered basic medical and food supplies to those attempting to cross the U.S. border. These migrants, half of whom are women or children, face dangers including "fording flood-prone rivers, crossing dangerous deserts on foot and evading the armed gangs of smugglers and traffickers who will attempt to rob, rape and kidnap them." Hundreds die attempting to cross each year. Yet several bills being considered in the Senate now, including the potential compromise bill backed by Arlen Specter (R-PA), include a provision that would make it a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison to offer aid to undocumented immigrants. According to Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney, "the proposed law is so broad that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or administering first aid." Mahoney has instructed the priests of his archdiocese to disobey the law if it is enacted: "Denying aid to a fellow human being violates a law with a higher authority than Congress — the law of God." As Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said this week, "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

the benefits to businesses of immigrants like banking and to the economy in general.

I had posted this earlier. Great pic at website.

Thu Mar-23-06 07:13 PM
Original message
MILWAUKEE What was billed as "A Day Without Latinos" filled Milwaukee's streets with thousands of demonstrators today.

Police estimate more than ten-thousand people turned out to protest congressional efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants. Organizers say the crowd was closer to 30-thousand. About 90 Latino-owned businesses were closed for all or part of the day in support.

As one protester put it, "We want to be equal."

The demonstrators oppose a bill that would make it a felony to live or work illegally in the U-S. The measure approved by the House would also impose new penalties on employers who hire illegal migrants and build a fence along about a third of the U-S border with Mexico.

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=4674762

former immigrants who pay taxes and contribute to the community.

speaking of living in fear every day because of the racism.

thanking Sensenbrenner and Frist for mobilizing this movement that will be appearing in the streets and in protest throughout the nation.

:rofl:

marches in all major cities.

what is happening. I always knew it would be labor that would finally get this country mobilized to overthrow the neo-con stranglehold we have had in our country the past five years. I never realized it would be the undocumented workers.

But it makes sense. Revolutions are fought by those who have nothing to lose but everything to gain. It's very American. I'm sure that all these movements and protests will be joined by war protesters and others with an axe to grind with the Bush Administration.

There are just as many Democrats if not more, that oppose amnesty and favor more border security than neocons. These many Democrats I speak of and know, know that they have a lot more to lose personally. The cons get cheap labor, cheap nannies and cheap gardeners, but one must be well-to-do to get those benefits.

There may be a more favorable view to illegal immigration on DU, but I can tell you from my observation that out in the real world most Democrats who work for a living do not favor it.

getting the unions involved so that the immigrants make the same money as other workers. That takes the cheap labor aspect out of it. Then it's a matter of those immigrants competing with others. In those circumstances the best and most responsible workers will get the jobs. This levels the playing field.

When labor supply is unlimited wages fall. With guest worker programs and/or amnesty it is an unlimited supply of labor, unfortunately for those Americans that might have finally gotten some leverage for wage increases. My guess is that those who favor expanding unregulatng these immigration programs have positions that aren't directly affected or are retired and on a nice pension.

But I can almost assure that those who favor the looser positions are in a trade or job or business that has to compete.

There are many factors in play in an economy and supply and demand are only part of it. Reducing it to supply and demand is oversimplyfying things.

I am more worried about creating a scapegoat class, which is where this is going if we don't stop it. Remember the Jews in the Third Reich?

Weren't they blamed for owning business and other things that Germans should have had? This is how it starts.

hail from.

So I suppose there is debate on CSPAN by showing both sides unlike what an earlier post said

I gotta get ready for my neighbor's ninetieth birthday party.