Could someone please explain the immigration issue?

I guess I just don't get it.

Do the people coming into the U.S. not want to go through the proper procedures to become legal citizens? If so, why? Is the process difficult? Expensive? Somehow prohibitive? Is there a reason why they couldn't become citizens?

I guess I feel like there must be some reason why they would not want to become a legal citizen vs. an illegal immigrant. If they are in the country illegally, they're kind of starting off on the wrong foot as far as I'm concerned, so what is the attraction (for lack of a better word) to sneaking in illegally vs. going through the proper procedures?

No one I've talked with has given me the same response, so I'm not really sure what the truth is. Which of course, might be the whole point behind the confusing reports in the media.

Thanks in advance for the education.

I'd also like to know our position on the issue.I'm for immigration,but the cheap labor irritates me employers should pay everyone living wages.There's drugs and terrorism it's a complex issue.I don't have a stance on the isssue so I'd be interested in what others think.

impossible. These people have families to support now.

Personally, I think it's the "gay marriage" of 2006. It's just not a real problem.

Wages aren't being affected by illegal ditch diggers. Wages are depressed by union busting and off-shoring. If the USA wants to stop illegal immigration (and drugs) stop making it illegal.

Get yourself in a car and travel to the Midwest and the South, in the rural areas that have been literally "invaded" "overrun" by illegal aliens. The whites and blacks there are seething with resentment, fear and anger.

It's people using words like "overrun' and "invasion" that are the problem.

The fear and resentment are being used the same way fear and resentment were used against gays in 2004.

Nice to know I don't count.

than any of the Midwestern states. And we're not on any border.

That's a border --probably not the one that other poster had in mind :hi:

In all seriousness Massachusetts has a history of absorbing large waves of immigrants and it tends not to seem quite so earth-shattering as it does in mostly rural homogeneous interior states.

I think most immigrants get here on planes or by car these days though. Massachusetts is a melting pot, which is what makes it a great place to live. :-)

I find it perplexing that many posting on the immigration issue are blaming the immigrants, and not the policies that allow cheap labor conservatives to hire them.

That it's urban centers draw more workers than Kansas?

Is that a suprise?

I was making a comment on the loaded language used by another poster. I also want to know why absorbing new immigrants isn't a problem for some states, but in others it stirs up prejudices and racial tension.

See post #34

I copped a snotty attitude when I was the one mis-following the thread.

Oops. Sooooo sorry.

I often have a hard time following threads too. :-)

I live in California and seeing Latinos is so routine that it would be foolish to assume that 'they' are overrunning the place. In other parts of the country where there hasn't been much of a Latino population there is a strong backlash because the Latinos stand out as different and they're working in the factories and plants that once would have been the primary employer for locals. There has been a lot of union busting through sales of union shops to new companies who open as non-union shops and yes, it's not fair to blame the Latinos working there for lower wages but it is where the anger is focused. This isn't a new idea. Other large waves of immigrants faced the same sort of resentment because the immigrants were willing to put up with longer hours, lower wages, etc. Add to it some immigrants who have no legal status and it's just that much easier for companies to take advantage.

Unlike gay rights, many people in such areas see this issue as hitting their wallets. It's too bad we can't get more people to see the 'them vs. us' here is business vs. worker, not worker vs. worker.

But this issue uses people fears and predjudices just like the "gay marriage" issue.

Like you said, this is a business vs worker issue and the immigrants should be on OUR side. And OUR side should be on the side of ALL workers.

In cities like Boston, Lawrence, Lowell, Cambridge, and Somerville, the percentage is even higher. Yet we never hear prejudiced words like 'invaded' and 'overrun'. Our largest immigrant group comes from Brazil, and they have opened businesses, bought property, and become citizens. We are a nation of immigrants. Get over it.

Yes, and who is hired to bust the unions, hm?

was that a trick question?

why is union busting easier now than it was 50 years ago? I am wondering if the fact that there are 8 million illegal aliens who are willing to work for cheap, and complicit US businesses who are more than happy to hire them, has contributed to this problem? Or is it something else?

Unions were corrupted in the 50s and 60's by the mob. I remember growing up(60's 70's) thinking unions were just another word for the mafia. I never understood what unions did to better the nation until I was in college. The right wing has effectively villified the unions.

The problem is not the people who want to work. If a guy is willing to walk from Guatamala to get a job, THAT'S the guy I want to hire. THe problem is that they are "illegal" and therefore exposed to exploitation from unscrupulous criminals, you know, Republicans.

the problem is the people who hire them and take advantage of their situation.

What do you think of Bush's "guest worker" idea? I have to admit I haven't read much about it yet.

Because he's a lying cheating piece of dung.

I suspect it's simply a way to institutionalize the exploitation. But truthfully, I haven't looked at it ....because it's Bush's idea.

I had the same reason. :D

it mobilized 500,000 people on one side of the wedge, and pissed of the Bushie racist/xenophobe base on the other side.

so who cares abt your neighbor

gotcha

or a dish washer?

your ignorance is a little stunning

did you know that construction was once a well-paying job that allowed a man to buy a home, a new truck, and support his family?

I know construction workers today who have a home, a new truck and support their families.

Are you saying they don't?

...are clearly depressing the wages for all the rest

there is no use telling me that what i see every day isn't what i see every day, THAT is an insult to anyone's intelligence

"paid under the table"

The people who want to work aren't the problem. The criminals who exploit them are the problem.

The anger in this country is very real. I see it all the time among working people, both Democrats and Republicans. If Democrats embrace the illegals, they will lose in November:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017855/site/newsweek/
I'm for _legal_ immigration, not illegals

As a matter of fact, I was going to post the same post. Somebody please explain it. I haven't been following it. Immigration is not an issue in my part of the world.

Is this bipartisan?: Who is for what? I'm worred when I see folks on the left agree with Michele Malkin.

Someone put it in simple terms for old Grannie, please.

corporations.

I don't see what is wrong with going after businesses that hire illegals because they can pay them poorly and treat them poorly. If someone disagrees, I'd like to know why.

This is from Wikipedia, and it has more links to information about this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_US_immigration

Much of the controversy today with immigration to the U.S. involves an increasing number of activists calling for a reduction in illegal immigration. Critics of these activists say that those who call for an end to "illegal immigration" really advocate an end to all immigration, but do not realize it. Two claims made against immigration reduction activists by those opposed to restrictions on immigration are:

1. All the problems associated with illegal immigration (race to the bottom in wages, etc.) also apply almost equally to legal immigrants.
2. They allegedly misunderstand the immigration process and do not realize that many immigrant workers who they see as replacing American citizens in jobs they can do have immigrated completely legally, albeit without citizenship (this number exceeds the number of illegal immigrants on a per-country basis).

On the other hand, those who would reduce immigration make the point that illegal immigrants do not pay income taxes, social security taxes, or other taxes collected only from citizens with social security numbers, yet those illegal immigrants do utilize the services and structures paid for by public money. Much of this argument is based on false information. All employers are required by law to withhold income and payroll taxes. Illegals usually use a false Social Security number--knowing that they will never receive benefits. Of course, they all pay sales taxes, property taxes (directly or through landlords), gasoline taxes, hunting licenses, and so on. In terms of benefits, the illegals are quite young (so few receive Social Security or Medicare) and seldom receive any welfare payments. The main cost to local government is the cost of public schools, which by law must be open to all children. Most of the children of illegals are in fact American citizens because they were born in the US. Congress in early 2006 was debating provision to strip babies born in the US of their American citizenship if their parents were undocumented.

some don't want to become citizens, just like many Americans who work in, say, Hong Kong or Italy don't want to give up their US citizenship.

Other than that, the road to legality here is a difficult one. To get permission to work here could take months, or years, and there is no guarantee that you'll get it. Even if you do, the rules are so complex that you could find yourself in worse shape working legally than illegally. Break a rule you've never heard of and you could be banned forever.

Citizenship takes much more time, and there's no gurantee you'll get that, either.

.....if anyone wants anything - immigration or anything else - they have two choices in life.

1) Go about getting what the person wants following the rules, which may be long and drawn out. This approach holds no guarantees of actually receiving what the person is after either.

.....or......

2) Go about getting what the person wants illegally and at the same time avoid all the rules and potential limits. Avoiding rules is quick and guarantees quick easy results.

Which would you choose if you were bent on getting something?

indeed it is always more difficult to do things legally and honestly

there was a day when i was homeless and had no job, but i did not pick up a gun and rob a bank, and i notice that most people who did (i did know a couple bank robbers) did it not because of hunger but because they had substance abuse problems and had lost their soul

even in dire circumstance people can still make choices to be honest or not to be honest

the path to legal immigration should be difficult because we want people coming here who are capable of following complex instructions (intelligent) and also honest (not willing to do whatever they like for the sake of convenience, which is the classic criminal mind)

people who bend the rules to their own convenience in one circumstance will always bend the rules to their own convenience

to enter this country legally and work and become a citizen. Several of my coworkers are here on H1B visas -- they are technology workers. Many of them are working on getting their citizenship, and it has taken them several years to do so.

Freakin Big Deal.
The law says you have to be a permanent resident for 5 years before applying. That has been the law for decades. Permanent residents can work but can't vote.

They are homeless because their governement failed during Katrina.

or a green card.

The cost of an H1B visa is about a thousand dollars and you are virtually an "indentured servant" to your employer while you are working since they are sponsoring you and you have to stay at your current job until you get your green card or become a citizen.

The problem is NOT the fee for becoming a citizen, the problem is how do you support yourself while you are putting in the time living here in order to be eligble for becoming a citizen.

there are over 6 billion people in the world and probably 1 billion of them want to move here

people have to take their turn and play fair

i have a sister-in-law, w. a doctorate degree, married to an american citizen, and it took her 10 yrs to become a citizen, 10 years, and she came from a country where as an educated muslim woman she was not going to be allowed to have a job or freedom

yet some people think it is OK for others to jump ahead of the line of those who have family ties here and who have educated themselves

and what is their motive? well, it's pretty simple, they miss the old plantation slaves, and the old joke of "i love ****** every white man should have one" has been replaced by "I love mexicans every white man should have one"

put all the spin on it you like, but that's what it boils down to in the end, line jumpers and those who benefit by making line jumpers into slaves and keeping wages down for everyone


the pro-slavery faction may claim it is the anti-illegal immigration faction that is racist, but i judge people by action, and if you support a huge influx of people coming here, knowing they will be slaves working below minimum wage forever, then you are a slave-owner or a wanna-be slave owner and pretending otherwise don't fool me none

is that the wingnuts are achieving, perhaps inadvertently, one of their favorite goals, which is to DIVIDE us.

We have, here on DU, persons who are actually agreeing with the Minutemen and TANCREDO, not to mention O'LOOFAH, HANNITY, and MALKIN.

The operative principle for Dems is that we are a confederation of different groups, each group having its #1, identifying agenda item DIFFERENT from the other groups' #1 items, possibly not reaching the bedrock consensus until we get down to the 3rd or 4th items down the line---like, social justice for all, civil rights, humane treatment under the law. Thus we have union groups who would oppose NAFTA *and* some kind of accomodation on the immigrants VERSUS other Dems------------------who ======= ARE =======Dems---------who support those sides (more than likely residing in the border regions).

The wingnuts have been leading on the immigration issues for three years, framing it THEIR way, claiming that it is "national security" and "enforcing the law", while a mere scratch of the surface reveals raw racism as a very real, very potent engine for their views. Fences and militarizing the borDER, as opposed to borDERS, with our peaceful neighbors is ANATHEMA, and WILL have the opposite effect of fueling hostility, just as Shrub has sown more seeds for future terrorism.

We are going to be caught flat footed AGAIN by wingnut framing of the issues in the next election. We need to FOCUS on our traditional roots, that we are FOR national security, are AGAINST "illegality", that we are FOR civil rights, social justice, and humane treatment---------the same as we are for CHOICE, not "abortion".

it interests me when you say we need to get back to our roots, that you don't have the number one item in our roots in your list -- our support of labor and the working man

if you hadn't forgotten all abt that, the rest of the re-framing and triangulation and silly word games wouldn't be necessary

look here is your list, i am pasting without cutting anything from the paragraph:

We need to FOCUS on our traditional roots, that we are FOR national security, are AGAINST "illegality", that we are FOR civil rights, social justice, and humane treatment---------the same as we are for CHOICE, not "abortion".

all else flows from the desire to support the working man and labor, there is no social justice possible if workers are set at ea. other's throats to battle for scraps

again and again, those who think their jobs are beyond threat and the jobs of people in their class are beyond threat want to tell the rest of us what the "real" issues are

you later agreed was included in "social justice". I was speaking "globally," so to speak. (That little pun will likely cost me.)

I don't want to trivialize the issue, but I think that it is extraordinarily complex and should not be limited to whether or not working (not being) in this country is illegal. At least one thing that should be considered: what immigrants rights groups protest is the criminizalization of illegal immigrants--thier imprisonment rather than deportation, the withholding of legal council--and the harsh treatment of all immigrants (not just illegal) by immigration authorities.

is because it is predominantly done by non-whites. I think current Immigration laws should be enforced to

protect not only low wages workers but protect women and children from sex trade. If this issue is to

split a party it would split the Repugs. They are not making ANY effort to control the borders but were

willing to sell border control (Dubai- US port issue) to overseas companies.

The illegal immigrants we're discussing are poor. Crushingly poor. To get into the United States legally, you have to have money. They don't.

Yes, the process is difficult, expensive and time-consuming. It is intentionally so, to control immigration. The inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty is just a nice sentiment. The United States does not really want the tired, poor, or the wretched refuse, and our immigration laws make this clear.

The "attraction" of sneaking in illegally is that it is possible, whereas legal immigration, for the very poor, is not.

Another reason: poor, powerless workers are a commodity. There is money to be made by bringing them where the work is. The people who transport them and the employers who hire them are rarely penalized, so the benefit of using them outweighs the risk.

and time consuming with no guarantees of success at any point. It is much easier to sneak into the US illegally and take whatever work you can find instead of staying where you are and continuing to struggle even harder to survive.

From the point of view of US citizenry, though, an illegal "immigrant" is simply someone illegally in this country. If they aren't here legally, then they should be sent home, as disastrous as that might be for the individual deported.

Pretty simple, so far.

Problem is, the GOPukes want it both ways. They want to scream holy murder about the hordes of illegals flooding over the borders (their description) while turning a blind eye to the US companies that hire them once they are here. Sometimes, and maybe more than "some" times, these companies actually finance the costs of these cheap workers getting into the US illegally. The government response is to lightly fine a company in violation that they inadvertantly stumble across while trying to ignore the whole issue. Those of us old enough to remember Ford and the Pinto know how that "fine" system works; bottom line is it is easier to swallow the occasional wrist-slap fine than to pay a living wage to your workers.

Many GOPuke economists (Heritage, Cato, etc.) will tell you point blank that cutting off the flow of cheap labor will have a disastrous effect on our standard of living (who will watch the kids? mow the lawn? work cheap as day laborers in farms and construction?) so illegal immigration is great for the economy, assuming you are not one of those being exploited and, if injured, discarded.

Solution? Close the borders. Strictly restrict immigration. Take the hit on the economy. Mow your own lawn. Stop the exploitation of people who are without status, rights or defense.

Those of us who have spent our lives in construction work used to joke that at least they couldn't outsource OUR jobs. Well, why bother outsourcing if you can bring in Mexicans and Russians illegally to do the jobs right here? The AFL-CIO (at least as long as it continues to exist) has made some good noises about organizing the immigrant workers but what good would that do? There are a lot more out there who are anxious to take any job, union or not, and anyone organised by the AFL-CIO will be easily replaced by newcomers.

The only solution, to the extent that there is a solution, is to stop smuggling people across our borders. Everything else is whitewash and rhetoric.

The immigration debate depends realistically,
on whether you count the ones who leave as well,
as the emigrated millions to foreign dependency,
balance out the equation, world population swell.
The open-culture ethic is the last pillar standing,
to close the borders serves no goodwill indeed,
it presumes private persons are criminals backhanding,
our private travel, not presumed innocent, smugglers greed.

Why not leave private travellers alone of all types,
and simply ask they make their mark, no immigration stampede,
collect the fair taxes and give them labour rights,
engender pursuit a free global citizen's god-speed.
No value comes from taxes for more prison walls,
Bush small heartedness waxes, injustice calls.

Legally in Mexico to come to the United States. The father had been coming to the U.S. seasonally as a migrant farm worker for years before that though. I don't know if five years is typical, long, or realtively short for the average Mexican.

There is a construction firm that has it's payroll done by an independent payroll company. Prior to this, the owner hired and paid illegal immigrants minimum wage for very hard work. But, the independent payroll company investigates the employees I-9 papers and will not put anyone on their payroll as an illegal immigrant. So now he pays them contract labor. And to make it more profitable, he pays them an inflated contract labor wage and then takes a kick-back, telling them that it's in case they are hurt on the job. A truck picks these workers up from a dilapidated apartment where they live in mass, sometimes ten to an apartment, as this is the only way they can live and send money back to their families in Mexico.

INS officers have been cut drastically. This company has been reported and nothing has been done. It's a pea in a mass of other peas and there is simply no enforcement. My opinion is that the illegal worker is the neo-con key to further capitalism and to get rid of the middle class, as blue collar workers were once the respected backbone of our country. And don't forget that most, if not all, of the border states are right to work states and this has what has busted the unions.