NY Times: Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority

[blueclown]

Source: NY Times

While acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult, President Obama plans to begin addressing the country’s immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

Mr. Obama will frame the new effort — likely to rouse passions on all sides of the highly divisive issue — as “policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system,” said the official, Cecilia Muñoz, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs in the White House.

Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.

Some White House officials said that immigration would not take precedence over the health care and energy proposals that Mr. Obama has identified as priorities. But the timetable is consistent with pledges Mr. Obama made to Hispanic groups in last year’s campaign.

He said then that comprehensive immigration legislation, including a plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, would be a priority in his first year in office. Latino voters turned out strongly for Mr. Obama in the election.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/09immig.html?_r=1&hp

---

The devil is in the details, but the part in this broad outline about establishing fines and penalties on those who got into the country illegally is kind of counterproductive, IMO, especially if it is a substantial fine. How many illegal immigrants in this country are barely above water right now financially? Mandating a fine could really hurt those who seek families who can barely put food on the table.

[Avalux]

1. There has to be consequences for those in the country illegally.

A manageable fine with a path to citizenship is appropriate. I do not advocate insurmountable fines nor do I advocate wiping the slate clean. Middle ground.

[blueclown]

6. What is the definition of a managable fine?

I'd really like to know what a managable fine would be clarified as.

Is there a penalty imposed on each individual in a family who came here illegally?

[AlphaCentauri]

58. 80 dollar a month for 5 years, maybe

12 000 000 x 5000 = 60 000 000 000

Enough to bailout some bankers

[imdjh]

16. We can kiss National Single Payer goodbye if this is an amnesty

Some White House officials said that immigration would not take precedence over the health care

The system is overloaded as it is. Just about every major city in the nation has water supply problems. And yet, there are some people who imagine that amnesty is the "correct" liberal position. It isn't, it's simply a misguided emotional response. It's a childlike sense of "fairness" being applied to a situation where fairness isn't part of the equation, and has no obligation to appeal to anyone's sense of fairness.

The only reason that the millions of illegal alien workers in this country works to the benefit of those who employ them is because they can be exploited due to their need to avoid the legal protections of labor law and social welfare. Making them legal isn't doing them or us a favor. Allowing employers to continue to exploit them isn't doing the country or the nation a favor. That only leaves one alternative- enforce the border and enforce immigration laws.

[GOPNotForMe]

22. What does "enforce" mean in terms of the 12 million who are here?

Who has integrated into American life more or less... How feasible is it to deport 12 million people because that sounds like what you are suggesting and I can say without doubt that it is impossible, given our limitations (financially and legally). So I guess that means status quo forever!

[imdjh]

24. There are several theories on how that would work

Frankly it's not something that I find pleasant to think about, because many models require that a person regard the illegal immigrant population more like an invasive species or migration. They involved making it more difficult to stay than it is to leave. At a minimum, they require that we aggressively seek out and punish the employers.

I do read some of what these people and their supporters write. Not all of it warms your heart to them or their cause. There is an attitude of entitlement to some, and aggression to some. But a common belief seems to be that the US needs them and wants them here, that those who are demanding that they leave are racist right wing klan types. I don't think that the US government, or even a state government has issued a formal request and advertising campaign asking them to leave voluntarily. That might be a good start. Asking someone politely to leave is generally ones first attempt.

[AlphaCentauri]

60. Those are the old US policies toward Cuba

let them starve and they will change their mind,
is it better to be living poor in a third world country than in the first world?

[imdjh]

96. I disagree with the analogy

Our policy towards Cuba is our government trying to change the government of Cuba. You are correct, it's wrong and it hasn't worked. However, there is a huge difference between trying to isolate a sovereign country, and trying to enforce our immigration and other laws inside our country.

Which is not to say that we would not approve of the US taking a hard line on Mexico, if Mexico were dumping a chemical into the Sonora Desert, allowing it to flow over the border into San Diego, or out into the Pacific Ocean to wash up on its American shore. Correct?

[Virginian]

31. I drive past an area where the day laborers wait for work.

I pass that area at least twice a week and as late as 10:30 there are 30 - 60 men standing around who didn't get work that day. Crime is up. Home invasions are up. We have to lock all our doors while we cut the grass or we might be surprised by a stranger inside our home when we go inside.

When the weather was really cold, I wondered if it was better to be unemployed and cold or would some of these men really like to return to native soil but they just don't have the resources to get home.

[Blue_Tires]

55. which part of Virginia are you in? just wondering

you don't have to give specifics...just say the general region: north, central, southwest, etc...

[pampango]

37. "Making them legal isn't doing them or us a favor."

If the "only reason" they are here is "because they can be exploited due to their need to avoid the legal protections of labor law and social welfare", then removing reason they can be exploited should "do them a favor". They would then be able to avail themselves of the "protections of labor law and social welfare".

Indeed, "(a)llowing employers to continue to exploit them isn't doing the country or the nation a favor", so removing the ability of employers to exploit them should do "us (the nation) a favor".

[imdjh]

53. Next wave

If you snap your fingers and make all illegal aliens currently in the US citizens then what are the PROBABLE results? Please note that I used the word "probable", some folks like to leave a word out or change it, not that you have.

If employers have to pay full freight and comply with other labor laws, then why would they continue to employ this particular group of people?

If the law abiding or safety conscious would-be immigrants who have remained in points south see that America really will legalize them eventually, then won't we get another wave of illegal immigrants?

If the current population of illegal and even legal immigrants is clashing with the native American poor with whom they compete for space and jobs, then what will happen when a new wave of illegal southern immigrants comes in behind them and competes for space and jobs?

If the current illegal immigrants become eligible for welfare, then will it not have the same destructive effects on their families that it has on US families unless we first overhaul the welfare system?

[pampango]

57. Good questions.

"If employers have to pay full freight and comply with other labor laws, then why would they continue to employ this particular group of people? "

First generation immigrants (in any country) are generally very hard workers. Leaving the country and culture you have grown up in is a difficult thing to do. You have to really have a drive to work hard and help your family to do it. I doubt that that drive will disappear the minute that someone gets legalization. Second- and third-generation immigrants (again, in any country) don't necessarily exhibit the same drive to work hard."

"If the law abiding or safety conscious would-be immigrants who have remained in points south see that America really will legalize them eventually, then won't we get another wave of illegal immigrants?"

I think we would both agree that we have been getting waves of illegal immigrants even without the promise of legalization. Would legalization provide more incentive for illegal immigrants? It seems logical to me, but I'm not a potential illegal immigrant whose main concern is providing for his family and is willing to go through a lot of hardship and uncertainty for the chance to work hard for what, to most of us, is very little money. I doubt that potential legalization years down the road is near the top of his considerations, but it may be a factor.

"If the current population of illegal and even legal immigrants is clashing with the native American poor with whom they compete for space and jobs, then what will happen when a new wave of illegal southern immigrants comes in behind them and competes for space and jobs?"

Immigrants have never been popular in the US. Most of us are proud of the ethnic diversity of the US and realize that it is a product of immigrants (and slaves) who came here from all parts of the world. We view quite favorably past immigrants in our history as the people that built the country and created the unique diversity that we have today. But those immigrants, Irish, Italians, Germans, Chinese, were not popular or welcome in their day.

Throughout our history many Americans have viewed immigrants as competition for "space and jobs". (Even the internal immigration of millions of African-Americans from the South to northern industrial cities in the last century was viewed by many as unwelcome competition for "space and jobs".) If one believes that immigrants are not a positive benefit, on balance, for their adoptive country then one would oppose immigration (legal and illegal). If one believes that immigrants are a net positive benefit for the country, then one deals with the "real-time" opposition that has existed for centuries, in order to achieve the long term benefit that immigrants can bring to this or any country.

"If the current illegal immigrants become eligible for welfare, then will it not have the same destructive effects on their families that it has on US families unless we first overhaul the welfare system?"

I don't have an answer (or even an informed opinion) on that one, though the idea of keeping them illegal to protect them from our welfare system is one I hadn't thought of before.

[imdjh]

62. Good points

The only thing I would emphasize is the scale of this immigration and potential immigration. It literally dwarfs any prior immigration to the US both in numbers and percentages. Moreover, the country itself is different and more densely populated and developed than it was in prior immigrations.

For example, the largest wave of Irish immigrants was 40,000 in one year and that was in a time when much of what is now covered in concrete was in food production and while industrial capacity was on the rise. Rivers and wells were still running clean and more than adequate for the water requirements of the nation.

I might be open to an immigration program which steers immigrants away from the coasts and the current centers of immigrant collection. Southern California and the SW are under a great deal of stress. It might be cool to have some kind of homesteading program in less populated and more sustainable inland areas.

[pampango]

90. Immigrants were 11.7% of our population in 2003, but ranged from 13% to 15% from 1860 to 1920.

The Depression and WWII caused immigration to fall, so that by 1950 the percentage was down to 6.9%. It continued to drop due to restricted immigration laws to 4.7% in 1970. When those laws were liberalized the percentage started to increase up to the 11.7% in 2003. So the current levels of immigration are high in comparison to recent decades, but not historically.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/twps0029.html

I like the idea of somehow promoting immigrants to move away from the coasts. I know that goes against the grain of the history of immigrants settling in big cities on the East and West coasts, but it's a great goal.

[imdjh]

95. Percentages

The tables you link to show the foreign born population relative to the native born population, but the percentages I was referring to were the percentage of immigrants to the existing population, ie legalizing these millions of immigrants in one fell swoop relative to the existing population.

For clarity:

The chart says that in 1860 4.1M immigrants lived in the US out of a population of 31.4M people. Of those 4.1M immigrants, you have people who had been in the US for 80 years and people who arrived the day before the census.

[pampango]

98. The population that was foreign born in 1920 and lived in the US at the time were immigrants.

"The chart says that in 1860 4.1M immigrants lived in the US out of a population of 31.4M people. Of those 4.1M immigrants, you have people who had been in the US for 80 years and people who arrived the day before the census."

Just as the census in 1990 or 2000 or 2010 would show immigrants without regard to how long they have been here. Many would have just arrived and many would have been here for a long time. Admittedly an immigrant who has been here for 50 years is different from one who arrived yesterday, but that as true in 1920 as it is today.

The point is that immigration in the last 30 years has been relatively high by comparison to the 1930-1970 period, but is quite similar to the levels prior to that period.

[Romulox]

67. Logic problem: new illegal aliens will easily replace aliens granted amnesty.

[AlphaCentauri]

74. How?

[Romulox]

75. By crossing the border surreptitiously and working for less than citizens.

The same way they do it now. :hi:

[AlphaCentauri]

78. so what about, eliminating "illegals" with an amnesty and then enforce an immigration law that works

:hi:

[Romulox]

81. Obama isn't proposing "immigration law that works"--he's proposing amnesty.

You might assume that an "immigration law that works" would be part and parcel of such a plan, but it has never been so up until now.

[Summermoondancer]

85. No that isn´t the definition of amnesty

Amnesty usually is an all out forgiveness with nothing in return...Amnesty doesn´t include paying a fine much like you pay when you pay a speeding ticket...do you get amnesty or do you call it amnesty when you are fined for speeding? I don´t think so...it is considered a punishment for your error. So it isn´t amnesty it is just common sense...why deport those who are working? Work harder on deporting criminals and do not worry about the guy doing a job.

[Romulox]

91. Of course it's amnesty.

I'm not interested in semantics/characterization arguments, at any rate. The American public knew exactly what George W. Bush and the US Chamber of Commerce was proposing when they roundly rejected this proposal back in 2007.

"the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals"

m-w.com

[pampango]

92. The repubs shot down immigration reform in 2007 not the Democrat,

and not the "American public". The RW talking heads (Rush, Sean, Lou and Fox News) got the repub base all fired up about the "amnesty bill".

Repub senators ended up voting 37-12 against the reform bill, while Democrats voted 33-15 in favor of it. Maybe the Chamber of Commerce should spend some of its money on repubs next time, since they are the ones who defeated it.

[Romulox]

93. Um, don't look now but that's how our democracy works.

:hi:

[pampango]

99. I admire your faith in our democracy. I'll remember that if the repubs shoot down national health

care by getting Rush and the boys to fire up the base about "socialized medicine". :hi:

[Romulox]

100. LOL. Too bad the Democrats aren't proposing "National Healthcare"! nt

[pampango]

103. Not yet they aren't. You're right. If they do, you know the repubs will sloganeer it

to death, like they did using the "amnesty bill" over and over again.

[Romulox]

115. No, the same corporate paymasters pushing amnesty vehemently oppose UHC. nt

[pampango]

117. Au contraire. If the repub filibuster UHC, it will represent the will of the people by your logic.

"The American public knew exactly what George W. Bush and the US Chamber of Commerce was proposing when they roundly rejected this proposal back in 2007."

If repubs filibuster UHC in 2009 (like they did to immigration reform in 2007), would it be accurate to say that the American public knew exactly what Barack Obama was proposing when they roundly rejected his proposal in 2009?" And I do know "that's how our democracy works", as long as we view skillful legislative maneuvering (like a successful filibuster) as a perfect reflection of the will of the people.

[Romulox]

118. It's a silly hypo, since Dems in Congress aren't proposing UHC.

[pampango]

122. Certainly a hypo. Not too "silly" that repubs would filibuster what they view as "socialized

medicine". Point being that a successful repub filibuster of any legislation (be it immigration reform or UHC ) does not represent the "will of the public".

[Romulox]

125. So would Evan Bayh's gang of 15. So meh... nt

[Summermoondancer]

101. Roundly? No only right wing Repubs with their grandstanding

rejected it. No, it isn´t amnesty...that definition of amnesty is so loose and sloppy that it is all over the place.

[Romulox]

102. The public opposed it too. nt

[Summermoondancer]

105. No the public didn´t

oppose it just the very right wing opposed it and they tend to be a bit vocal and serial call places...in fact all polls show that a majority of Americans want immigration reform.

[Lasher]

156. Yes, the public certainly did reject the 2007 immigration bill.

Romulox was correct to say, "The American public knew exactly what George W. Bush and the US Chamber of Commerce was proposing when they roundly rejected this proposal back in 2007."

Just 22% Favor Stalled Immigration Bill

Monday, June 25, 2007

As the Senate prepares to resume debate the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill, the legislation continues to face broad public opposition. In fact, despite a massive White House effort, public opinion has barely moved since the public uproar stalled the bill just over two weeks ago.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 22% of American voters currently favor the legislation. That’s down a point from 23% a couple of weeks ago and down from 26% when the debate in the Senate began. Fifty percent (50%) oppose the Senate bill while 28% are not sure.

Among the public, there is a bi-partisan lack of enthusiasm for the Senate bill. It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is opposed by 52% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and 48% of unaffiliateds.

From an ideological perspective, the bill is opposed by 59% of conservatives, 54% of liberals, and 45% of political moderates. Among those for whom none of the traditional ideological labels apply, just 20% are opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/just_22_favor_stalled_immigration_bill

And as these poll results clearly show, it was not just the "very right wing" that opposed it. In fact, opposition was almost equal across party lines.

[pampango]

159. So the repubs in Congress bravely stood up to Bush and the Chamber of Commerce and let the will

of the people carry the day, while the craven Democrats voted in favor of immigration reform because they caved in to "special interests groups". Wow, those repubs really have the courage to stand up to the powers in their party and our politicians don't.

The was in Iraq war was popular in 2003. That doesn't mean that Congress was right to authorize it. Much of that "popularity" was based on misinformation spread by Rush, Sean, and Fox News. Democrats in Congress, for the most part, didn't stand up to it and most of us blame them for not doing what was right, but what was popular in the polls at the time.

In 2007 with immigration reform, the same RW radio and TV talking heads whipped up opposition to the "amnesty bill". If you are aware of a similar PR effort from liberals groups and media people against the reforms, please enlighten me. The RW is good at using misinformation and oversimplification to fire people us about an issue (see the War in 2003). In 2007 most of our politicians did vote for what they thought was right rather than what was popular in the polls. (Too bad they didn't do that in 2003 as well. Maybe they learned something in the meantime.) Unless you prefer to believe that them voting against the polls in 2007 represented some kind of political cowardice to liberal interest groups rather than doing what they thought was right instead of following the polls.)

[Lasher]

163. The war in Iraq was not popular in 2003.

In January 2003 77% of Americans were in favor of some military action to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power. But 49% thought the US should wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time. 43% opposed military action in Iraq that would result in substantial US military casualties, and 47% were against military action in Iraq if it meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years. Clearly, Americans favored some form of limited military action such as bombing or missile strikes. But when the coming conflict was more accurately described in poll questions, respondents were evenly split.

But that was a case where the US invaded another country. We were discussing the ongoing invasion of the US by others. Without qualification you claim that opposition to the 2007 immigration bill was generated by rightwing media pundits. In this it appears you are trying, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, to perpetuate the false characterization of opposition to amnesty as a right wing position. Well I have been a Democrat my whole life and I'm strongly opposed to amnesty or anything like it - particularly while we continue to come up short on enforcement to the tune of 200,000 new illegals every year.

[Summermoondancer]

84. Welfare?

legal immigrants are excluded from most welfare for the first five years they are here...and this would extend to anyone legalized under this plan is my understanding.
No one should be exploited and companies who are found exploiting workers, legal or illegal should be dealt with severely.

[Honeycombe8]

137. I'm guessing you don't live in an area struggling under the weight of an enormous

wave of illegal immigrants. I am.

I respect the hispanic culture. I understand why they're here. I don't blame them. I would go to Canada, if I thought I could get a better paying job there. But I can't. So it would be with illegal immigrants in this country; if the jobs weren't there, they wouldn't come, regardless of the country they are coming from.

It's a serious problem in the southwest. We are bending under the pressure of supporting millions of illegal immigrants who need medical care and education (they get both for free here). I am a working woman. I have had only about three days off since February (that includes weekends). Every year my property taxes go up and up (they are almost $5,000 a year for a house valued at about $150,000). They go up to pay for the schools and the charity hospital services, in part.

It's a dilemma. You want to help people. And we do. Almost 200,000 immigrants come into the country legally every MONTH. But we are buckling under the pressure of trying to educate, provide health care for, and employ the millions of others.

Not to mention crime. There are hispanic gangs in no small number. And many teens, if not in gangs, spend their afternoons breaking into neighborhood houses. I live in such a neighborhood; we have a neighborhood crime watch.

We have a serious problem on our hands. With the bad economy, some have returned home, so that's good. And that was because the work dried up. I think that's the key. Enforcing the laws we already have insofar as employers are concerned.

[Summermoondancer]

83. They are already here

and deportation isn´t likely...nor is it a good thing for the country. I agree with the fines and a normalization..what that fine should be and how it should be implemented is the question..should it be monthly as one other person suggested, is it for each member of the family or should it be paid all at once...I think there should be an option either pay say 100 dollars a month, most can manage that for the next five years, plus immigration fees, or pay say 6000 dollars for a family of 3 and additional fines if the family is larger.

[Barack_America]

2. Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority

Source: New York Times

While acknowledging that the recession makes the political battle more difficult, President Obama plans to begin addressing the country’s immigration system this year, including looking for a path for illegal immigrants to become legal, a senior administration official said on Wednesday.

Mr. Obama will frame the new effort — likely to rouse passions on all sides of the highly divisive issue — as “policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system,” said the official, Cecilia Muñoz, deputy assistant to the president and director of intergovernmental affairs in the White House.

Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/us/politics/09immig.html?hp

---

President Obama is clearly looking to spend some political capital while he's got it. This may be risky for Democrats in the short term, but will pay dividends in the long term (politically speaking).

By the way, does this guy ever sleep?

[Xipe Totec]

3. I'm sure he sleeps like a baby every night

That man has a clean conscience.

[DJ13]

10. President Obama is clearly looking to spend some political capital

I wish he would spend all of his political capital on EFCA and single payer health care, not an issue that will only further divisions among his own party.

Immigration isnt a high priority right now.

[w4rma]

4. Idiots. (nt)

[notesdev]

5. It's madness

We should be telling them to go home, not that they are welcome here. We are going to have enough problems providing for our own.

[Alhena]

7. Is this FreeRepublic? Democrats widely support immigration reform

and Hispanic voters turned out huge for our party in the last election. I'll concede that the timing is unforunate politically, but the principle of providing a path to citizenship is sound. They aren't going home regardless.

[justaregularperson]

12. Immigration reform but no amnesty

That has already happened several times and all it does is encourage more illegal activity. You have to decide to either have order and law or completely open the borders. And I don't think we are ready to do that.

[imdjh]

17. No, Some did, some didn't. Let's not assume. Yes.

No, this isn't Free Republic. If it were then there would be people who want to deport US citizens.

Some hispanics turned out for the Democrats and some turned out for the Republicans. Some hispanics want an open border, some want amnesty for people who are already here, and some want the immigration laws enforced. Moreover, hispanic and immigrant are not synonymous and it's rather, dare I say the r word, to assume that they have a unified position.

Many illegal aliens have left the country in the economic downturn. Reportedly, quite a few have gone to Canada.

Retaining millions of illegal aliens, bring more in legally or illegally, is going to further strain our already strapped systems. Adding to the population is not econpmically, politically, or environmentally sound.

[AlphaCentauri]

64. almost 70% of hispanics voted for Obama

In 2008, Obama took it 67-31

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loewe/why-immigration-reform-no_b_185115.html

[imdjh]

97. So?

If he got 70% of the Chinese American vote should we allow 12-30 million Chinese to immigrate next year?

[AlphaCentauri]

111. nobody is talking to bring millions of immigrants next year

it's about immigrants living in the US

[imdjh]

113. You're talking about giving away US citizenships

The fact that the illegal aliens are already here is irrelevant; they got here under their own steam, they can leave under their own steam. We're talking about giving about US citizenships, those papers have value, and we as a nation have a right to pick and choose. You want to give them to the illegal immigrants we now have, and that's you right to want that. I don't want to give them to anywhere near as many people as you do, and I want those without them to leave. It's really just a difference of opinion between you and I on that level. But when we get to the cost, which underlies the value of those papers, then it's a discussion of facts, logic, projections, and the ability of the nation to sustain such a high level of immigration. I think it's too high, way too high.

[AlphaCentauri]

124. earned citizenship

for those who qualify without criminal record

[imdjh]

136. earned how?

I agree that not having a criminal record is a good start, but don't we need to take into account that being and working in the country illegally is a crime?

Serving in the military was and I believe still is a path to US citizenship for Philippine nationals, but that is through a treaty between the US and the Philippines. But that allowed us to recruit from the Philippines not from Filipinos already illegally in the US. How do we recruit illegal aliens when we won't even let American citizens straighten their lives out by joining up due to some past behaviors which aren't necessarily indicators of unsuitability for service?

[emilyg]

21. Those who voted were here legally.

[Virginian]

32. They were?

I hope so, because only CITIZENS can vote.

[Summermoondancer]

86. No, those who voted were US citizens

legal immigrants and illegal immigrants cannot vote...but all polls done on these voters show that their reasons for voting democrat was due to the desire to actually address immigration reform and it is definately the reason they voted against Republicans because of their shows over the past two years...as a Hispanic that voted for Obama...I can say that immigration reform is something we want to see...especially considering some of the ill treatment by law enforcement and ignorant citizens alike of Hispanics who are citizens in the USA simply because of poor assumptions made.

[ardvark]

44. sounds like minorites are supported, unless it's one of opinion - nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. Democrats widely support workers.

Unlimited access to labor drives down wages.

Strict regulation of immigration at a rate which the domestic economy can support is a prerequisite of a healthy working class.

[Honeycombe8]

138. So someone should not speak unless they totally agree with the majority of Democrats?

How silly. Might as well say, "My way or the highway!" (sound familiar?)

[Lasher]

158. Actually, most Democrats oppose what Obama is proposing.

Most favor reducing illegal immigration as the first priority of reform. Amnesty without improved enforcement is opposed by most Democrats.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/just_22_favor_stalled_immigration_bill

[Justyce]

8. No kidding. This isn't going to go over well. nt

x

[Alhena]

9. The timing isn't ideal, but the principle of the bill is sound

and no one is talking about sending them home, they are here to stay.

[OhioChick]

11. No, it won't. Especially in this economic climate. n/t

[JeanGrey]

15. This is going to blow up in his face.

[GOPNotForMe]

23. Ah, such a simplistic statement for such a complicated issue. nt

[SlowDownFast]

119. Not complicated at all. ILLEGAL means "against the law".

In other words, "criminals".

Maybe we should take the locks off of some DUr's doors (perhaps yours?) and invite ANYBODY and EVERYBODY in their town who wants to move into their house indefinitely - without fear of penalty - rent-free, feed them, clothe them, provide for their medical needs - all on that DUr's (your) expense.

[AlphaCentauri]

126. Illegal, as in illegal troops in other countries, illegal torture, illegal house mortgages

I have an addition for your "brilliant" analogy, stop consuming any products or services that illegals touch and look at the refrigerator and see what are you going to stop eating today.

hummm! tasty tomatoes!!!

[riverdeep]

173. And when did anyone say they are FOR illegal invasions

or illegal torture? Democrats are widely opposed to all of those things, and should oppose them when it's done to us.

[AlphaCentauri]

185. Sorry not all of them

Lieberman comes to mind

http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/04/democrats-duck-bush-torture-probe/

[GOPNotForMe]

135. Your simplification demonstrates a clear lack of understanding.

"Illegal" immigrants fall under many different categories - some pay taxes, some don't; some work jobs, some don't; some are drains on the economy, some aren't. You are shoving ~12 million people into some monolithic group because it aids your outcome-determinative reasoning. To paraphrase Bill Maher: You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts.

[Javaman]

13. 12 million, huh? why does that number jump out at me?

http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/article.php?sid=930

(this is from those minutemen racists. could the times be pulling this info from their site?)

On Dec. 4th, 2007, in discussing illegal aliens on NPR, Obama that he wants "to give them a pathway, so that they can earn citizenship, earn a legal status."

On June 28th, 2008, Obama told an audience that he supports "reform that finally brings the 12 million people who are here illegally out of the shadows by requiring them to take steps to become legal citizens."

On Feb. 21st, 2008, Obama said that he wants the federal government to have the ability "to deal with the 12 million people who are living in the shadows and give them a way of getting out of the shadows."



--Frankly, I think the illegals should be allow to become citizens in a gradual process.

--My personal tinfoil hat theory is that an influx of tax payers needs to be infused into society to take care of the short fall that may happen when the boomer generation retires.

[imdjh]

18. Do the math on that "influx of taxpayers"

Mr and Mrs Amnesty both work and make $10 per hour each. They have two kids. They get the earned income tax credit and have two kids in public school. They are in negative contribution status.

Unless I am incorrect. I am not a tax accountant.

[pampango]

35. Studies show that immigrants contribute more to the economy than they cost.

Here's one.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7622

[notesdev]

42. Badly flawed study

First, it makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Second, a review of the 'findings' two years on finds them to be absurd. But the fatal flaw in it is that it does not at all take into account the cost of providing social services (health & education especially). It's a rigged study, probably sponsored by one Chamber of Commerce or another.

[pampango]

48. Sorry it doesn't meet your standard. If you have a study that shows that immigrants

are a drag on the economy rather than a net benefit, please feel free to provide it (provided, of course, that is not sponsored by RW organization. I know that was gratuitous, but I added it due to your gratuitous Chamber of Commerce comment).

Pending such a study, here are some from Standing FIRM (http://fairimmigration.wordpress.com/), hardly a conservative organization.

"Most studies claiming to calculate the net “costs” of immigration suffer from one or more fatal flaws, including relying on single-year “snapshots” of the immigrant population and failing to consider many of the economic contributions of immigrants. More comprehensive studies that seek to avoid these pitfalls have found that immigrants use relatively few federal or state public-benefit programs and are a net fiscal benefit to the U.S. economy. (November 2007)"

http://immigration.server263.com/images/File/factcheck/EconomicsofImmRe-link2-12-08.pdf

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/images/File/factcheck/EconomicPacketLoResFINAL.pdf

[imdjh]

51. It's a simpler debate than that on my end

I can fully understand why someone would want to come to the US or stay here, in fact I do which is why it's personally difficult to take a hard line. I view the citizens of this country as my family and our collective resources as family resources. I feel a familial sense of duty to guard my family in a very selfish way.

[pampango]

54. Thanks. You're honest about it.

My reaction to that is that it doesn't seem liberal to seek to protect your family and its resources from outsiders without a balancing goal of using some of the assets of the relatively well-to-do to help those who are less well-off.

It strikes me as part of conservative philosophy to want to protect family assets and resources from others, above all else. Conservatives want to protect their income and assets through lower income taxes, eliminating estate taxes, and complaining whenever those less fortunate use "their money" to make their lives a little better. I believe that liberals also want to protect their family's assets and resources, but balance that with a commitment to use some of their resources to make society a little better.

[imdjh]

56. I would call it "my liberal paradox"

Let's look at Sweden. Sweden has universal healthcare, gay marriage, and is generally considered to be a pretty cool place. As I recall, gay marriage was met with loud and militant objection by the Muslim majority in one Swedish city.

Should Sweden give citizenship to six or twelve million Muslim immigrants? Would it still be Sweden five years later?

In the US many of us have a "well they're already here" mentality. What harm could it do?

Let's look at Florida. I love the Cuban people I personally know. But the stats say that I don't know enough Cubans to get a true picture of what would happen if we allowed millions of Cubans to immigrate to the US, much less all at once. I give you Mel Martinez. I give you Marco Rubio. One immigrant and one first generation American- both right wing Republicans. These two are who the Cuban-American community has sent to the top. Yes, there is Gloria Esteban, love her too, but South Beach Cubans are no more representative of the Cuban people than South Beach WASPs are representative of Anglo Saxon males in Florida.

If you own a farm and you give away some food each year, then you are charitable. If you give away the farm, then you can't be charitable anymore and there is no guarantee that the person you give it to will be charitable.

[ardvark]

63. beautifully stated

"
If you own a farm and you give away some food each year, then you are charitable. If you give away the farm, then you can't be charitable anymore and there is no guarantee that the person you give it to will be charitable."

Americans are literally giveing away the farm, by mortgaging it to China, to give benefits to non-citizens

there nothing 'generous' about crushing our kids with DEBT, before they get started in life

if you look at their actuall ballance sheet, these kids arent 'rich' AT ALL

[AlphaCentauri]

65. may I ask why compare Sweden to the US?

we don't have gay marriage, neither Universal health care and we don't have a 6 million muslims waiting for immigration reform.

We have many poor latinos in limbo holding a TPS status because our interventions in their home country made them miserable and they decided to come to the US for a better life.

[Summermoondancer]

88. Actually the TPS in countries like Honduras had nothing to do with intervention

It was because of Hurricane Mitch that destroyed most of the countries in Central America...however, most of them are back to normal..but they have a unique problem...these folks who have TPS have bought homes, cars, have jobs, and have US born children along with sometimes being married to folks from different countries including US citizens..it means there is a whole new ballgame in play with a whole list of complications making it difficult to not renew TPS visas.

[AlphaCentauri]

110. thanks for the clarification n/t

[imdjh]

94. Scale mostly

It's easier to imagine 6 million Muslims moving to Sweden than it is 120 million MORE immigrants moving to the US in short order, or 30 million immigrants ballooning to 120 million in 20 years of reproduction (30 million each having two offspring which then have two offspring each).

I see that someone else disagrees with you about the reason we have TPS in the country, but it's not part of my comments. I'd be glad to discuss the situation and choices of those people in a different thread, but I thought it was commonly understood that the discussion of illegal immigrants as a group in the US pertains to those persons who have entered this country illegally for economic reasons rather than as recognized and approved refugee status.

Eventually someone makes a "fairness" argument and for the life of me I can't understand how it's fair to give illegal aliens a fast track to citizenship while others wait. In the example we are talking about, we would be favoring primarily three or five countries over the many. And what would that be based on, proximity? If we're talking fairness, then how could we admit 30 million North Americans and turn away the people from South America who want to move here?

[AlphaCentauri]

109. proximity is not a factor, 40% out of the 12M entered the country with visa

[imdjh]

114. OK, why is that relevant?

Lots of people enter the country with a visa, and then leave on or before its expiration. Why is it unreasonable to expect everyone with an expired visa to leave? Would you enter Mexico or Guatemala legally and then overstay? Would you enter them illegally? Why should these people be given US citizenship or LRA status?

[Summermoondancer]

143. It shouldn´t be fast track by any means and I don´t think anyone is

suggesting that it should be. I think what most people are saying is at least extend them a visa and allow them to prove themselves at first and then work their way up to citizenship. Give them a spot in line in which they can wait to move forward instead of making them perpetually stay at the end of the line.
Yes, I disagreed with the reason for TPS because TPS means temporary protected status and it was extended in 1998 after Hurricane Mitch. I think the person is confusing NACARA with TPS.

[AlphaCentauri]

145. Countries that are designated for TPS are also designated for NACARA

El Salvador: Currently designated through September 9, 2010. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from October 1, 2008, to December 30, 2008. Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are automatically extended through September 9, 2009.

Honduras: Currently designated through July 5, 2010. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from October 1, 2008, to December 30, 2008. Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are automatically extended through July 5, 2009.

Nicaragua: Currently designated through July 5, 2010. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from October 1, 2008, to December 30, 2008. Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are automatically extended through July 5, 2009.

Somalia: Currently designated through September 17, 2009. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from March 12, 2008, to May 12, 2008. EADs were automatically extended through September 17, 2008.

Sudan: Currently designated through May 2, 2010. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from August 14, 2008, to October 14, 2008. EADs are automatically extended through May 2, 2009.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=609d3591ec04d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=609d3591ec04d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD

Section 203 of NACARA ("NACARA 203") applies to certain Guatemalans, Salvadorans and nationals of former Soviet bloc countries who entered the United States by specified dates and applied for asylum or registered for benefits under the settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (ABC). After October 2000, it also applies to their qualified family members and to certain individuals who have been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a lawful permanent resident, United States citizen, or by certain NACARA 203 beneficiaries. Section 203 of NACARA allows qualified individuals to apply for suspension of deportation or for cancellation of removal (“NACARA 203 relief”) under the standards similar to those in effect before the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. At the same time an individual is granted NACARA 203 relief, he or she is also given lawful permanent resident status.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=20c148afcb41e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3a82ef4c766fd010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD

[Summermoondancer]

149. TPS didn´t happen until after NACARA and Honduras was not one of the

countries included in NACARA....Nicaragua was. Honduras was extended TPS due to the cat 5 Hurricane Mitch that hit Honduras Oct 29, 1998---I was here supervising the building of my mother in laws new house when the storm came through.

Temporary protected status had nothing whatsoever to do with any US involvement in Latin America in any of the countries it was extended...it happened because of the hurricane that destroyed about half of Honduras and killed over 10,000 people.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/Nic_TPS_04_11_02_QA.pdf

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1721_0_2_0

Hondurans and Nicaraguans in the US on December 30, 1998 are eligible to apply for TPS until July 5, 2000 due to the environmental disaster and substantial disruption of living conditions caused by Hurricane Mitch and because Honduras and Nicaragua officially have requested that it be granted TPS designation. Hondurans and Nicaraguans must apply before July 5, 1999 for TPS.


Nothing implies it had anything to do with NACARA or any political action by the US...
In fact, it is clear that it was because of Hurricane Mitch.

NACARA only covered Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatamala...not Honduras...TPS only covered Hondurans,Salvadorans and Nicaraguans in the US before the hurricane and right after it came through.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=609d3591ec04d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=609d3591ec04d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD

Countries (or parts thereof) that are currently designated for TPS:
Burundi: The designation of Burundi for TPS has been terminated effective 12:01 a.m. May 2, 2009. To maintain TPS benefits through May 1, 2009, Burundian TPS beneficiaries must comply with re-registration requirements. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from October 29, 2007, to December 28, 2007. Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) were automatically extended through May 2, 2008.

El Salvador: Currently designated through September 9, 2010. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from October 1, 2008, to December 30, 2008. Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are automatically extended through September 9, 2009.

Honduras: Currently designated through July 5, 2010. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from October 1, 2008, to December 30, 2008. Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are automatically extended through July 5, 2009.

Nicaragua: Currently designated through July 5, 2010. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from October 1, 2008, to December 30, 2008. Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are automatically extended through July 5, 2009.

Somalia: Currently designated through September 17, 2009. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from March 12, 2008, to May 12, 2008. EADs were automatically extended through September 17, 2008.

Sudan: Currently designated through May 2, 2010. Most recent TPS re-registration period was from August 14, 2008, to October 14, 2008. EADs are automatically extended through May 2, 2009.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. Certainly.

The problem is the damage of unregulated immigration is to the value of labor. As labor costs are driven down, the capitalists profit. They are demonstrably unwilling to use their assets to help those who are less well off.

The long-term health of the entire region is dependent upon a prosperous working class in the US.

[riverdeep]

174. You're assuming that resources aren't finite.

The idea is that there is 'enough for everybody'. That may have been true a century and a half ago, when this nation was still in development, but this is a fully developed nation, and there is little room at the inn. As for selfishness, I see it as a lifeboat. You can let everyone in, and kill EVERYONE, or you can let in the allowed capacity, and some will die. It's a brutal decision, but I know what choice is the only rational one.

Unimpeded immigration will NOT help the less well-off that are here legally, whether by birth or legal immigration. Our first priority must be to those. Additionally, all this does is further delay the reform that needs to take place in Mexico. Mexico needs to be able to provide for its own citizens. And yes, I'm aware of the nefarious history of America in the affairs of Mexico and Latin America in general-those pressures need to be corrected, starting with the decriminalization of drugs in this country.

[pampango]

177. Thank you for being honest, too. If you view the US as a "lifeboat" then you are right to sacrifice

some (foreigners) to save the rest (Americans). In your lifeboat analogy that is a "brutal" decision that would have to be made. No large groups of immigrants have ever been welcomed, here or anywhere else. They are viewed as "not like us" and as competition for jobs and housing. And yet as a nation we have somehow survived all of this immigration and, for the most part, look back with pride on the diversity that has resulted from. Immigration seems to be popular when we look back at it historically, but it is never popular in "real time".

"Our first priority must be to" people period; not to one nationality or another, or one race or another, or one gender or another, or sexual orientation or another, or one hair color or another, or one age or another. Maybe in modern liberalism one is supposed to work for the welfare of the poor and middle class who live on the "lifeboat", while keeping those with the "wrong" nationality as far away from the boat as possible.

I may be getting too old for the "before I help you I need to see your papers" version of liberalism.

[riverdeep]

184. What's the point of even having a nation then?

One of the most fundamental aspects of a nation is that there is an inside and an outside. Those on the inside are expected to contribute and in return get certain benefits. Those on the outside are not welcome without being invited. No one invited the current influx of immigrants in question, which brings me to my next point.

What you fail to note, about immigration past, is that they largely came to this country legally, often at the behest of the government who used them for fodder in the industrial revolution and to displace the Native Americans. They were collectively invited, even if culturally they were looked down upon at various times.

Tell me, do you honestly think the United States can absorb all of the people that want to come here? Do you really think we can absorb all of the world's ills and in the end look anything like the America that makes them want to come here in the first place? Instead of that, why not work toward doing what we can to make those nations ones that people aren't desperate to leave. That is the ONLY long-term solution.

We as a species aren't in that John Lennon idealism yet where we can 'imagine there's no countries'. We have to work in the reality of where we are. I would actually like it if we were, but we aren't. And actually, this nation has more diversity than any other on earth. And given this extreme diversity, we are amazingly relatively peaceful. In Africa, black people kill each other over differences we can hardly distinguish. Same with Irish and British. The Japanese despise outsiders; the Koreans in their midst are treated like second class citizens.

[pampango]

191. If we could wave a magic wand, send the 12 million illegal immigrants back, but invite 12 million

to immigrate legally, would that be acceptable to those who focus on the "legality" of the immigrants we are discussing?

For those who would be happy to welcome 12 million new legal immigrants, I would believe that they were genuinely concerned with the rule of law and not using that as a strawman to oppose the presence of current immigrants.

For those who would not be happy to welcome 12 million new immigrants, then the "rule of law" emphasis is a bit of a distraction as the legality of the current immigrants would apparently not the deciding factor after all.

"Tell me, do you honestly think the United States can absorb all of the people that want to come here?"

I am not arguing for open borders any more than those on the other side are arguing for concentration camps for illegal immigrants. I do believe that our immigration system seems more designed to keep people out than to let them in in an orderly manner. Perhaps that is intentional - sort of a dam to hold back "all of the people that want to come here" - in which case it is more of a non-immigration system than an immigration system.

I do agree with you on the importance of improving the lives of people in the countries where they live. It is a difficult, but important, process. Many who resent the immigrants, though, also seem to resent the competition that products and services from Third World countries represent when their economies progress to the point they can compete with the US.

Your point about the US' diversity and relative peacefulness is well taken. It does show that diversity and peace can go together, but it will take, as you say, a long, long time.

[Summermoondancer]

87. Clearly though it does include illegal immigrants and it is more

likely that illegal immigrants qualify for less welfare than legal immigrants so how is the study flawed?

[Baby Snooks]

20. Try 50 million...

The "official" estimate is 25-38 million men, women and children - all here illegally. The majority of them from Mexico.

The more realistic estimate is probably 50 million. And "good" Democrats should go back and read the warnings of Barbara Jordan in 1996 as to what would happen to this country if illegal immigration continued. It happened. We cannot ignore the reality of the impact on our society.

The Republicans are racists who want "immigration reform" which will ensure a LEGAL right to employ illegal immigrants under the guise of "guest workers" who will destroy what little labor law has managed to survive the past 20 years of "immigration reform" which began the moment Ronald Reagan signed a law that would have stopped illegal immigration -the "guest workers" will continue to displace American workers and keep wages low and destroy not only what little labor law we have left but also destroy the labor unions.

The Democrats need to be realists instead of racists and listen to the warnings of Barbara Jordan and the warnings of Ronald Reagan.

The American people should be the priority. Not the right to profit off of what really is slave labor.

We have not solved Mexico's problems by taking in millions of Mexico's poor, who have become Mexico's primary export to the United States, and in fact we have worsened their problems and worsened our own in the process.

We the people. We are a nation of immigrants. But there is a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. The main difference is the illegal immigrants threaten what the legal immigrants established in 1776. A democracy founded on many principles, one of the most important being the principle of rule of law. That no one is above the law or beneath it. All are equal. If you allow that some are allowed to break the law, including immigration law, there is no law. And without law and the rule of law we simply will not last as a democracy although some would say we haven't and simply have become an oligarchy in which the many serve the few. We have become Mexico. We have the ruling families. And the middle-class is becoming the worker class. Just as it is in Mexico. And everyone else, the poor, simply don't exist.

Apparently the Democrats like cheap labor as well. And don't care about the American people any more than the Republicans do.

When you lose your job to an illegal immigrant, or can't get a job because you don't speak Spanish, or have to pay more taxes to cover the cost of cheap labor, when you see an increase in crime in your city, much of it violent and gang-related, when you see quality of neighborhoods decline, when you feel as if you are a stranger in your own country, perhaps you will understand the growing anger of Americans who are angry with those in both parties who believe the American people don't matter.

I'm sorry. They have no right to be here. They did not come here legally and obviously do not respect our law. If they did, they wouldn't be here. It really is that simple.

[imdjh]

25. I think that's double extrapolation

I think the baseline is 12 million with other estimates "as high as" 30 million. A 50 million figure would seem like someone has taken the 30 million and extrapolated it agains.

[AlphaCentauri]

69. in 1986 it was said that there were 7 to 10 millions

it turn out to be little more than 2 millions.

[Lasher]

157. There are about 13.5 million illegal immigrants in the US today.

According to a US Office of Immigration Statistics report there were 11.55 million in January 2006. Assuming the same growth rate as in 2004-2005, that should bring today's total to about 13.5 million. This is consistent with findings of an earlier US Immigration and Naturalization Service report, and with a Pew Hispanic Center report.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. No one is a taxpayer if they aren't a wage-earner.

The working class gets no benefit from 12 million new taxpayers, until the economy absorbs the surplus labor.

[corruptmewithpower]

14. 12 million new Democratic voters.

How can the President resist?

[ardvark]

45. funny how it's been 12 million for about 7 years now

so illegal immigraion must be solved, right?

the number hasnt gone up in 7 years

[FrenchieCat]

19. It's called "Keeping campaign promises"!

Barack Obama didn't promise single payer health....
but what he did promise was immigration reform to a large
and growing constituency!

The 25% that are Republicans already hate him anyways,
so might as well go for it!

It's not like McCain's immigration bill was that much different anyways,
so it ain't like McCain voters are gonna be outraged.

I think this President can handle this, and handle it well.

[Abq_Sarah]

27. Immigration reform

Doesn't necessarily mean amnesty. There has to be some consequence to violating the law... both for the person who is in this country illegally and for the person employing them.

[imdjh]

28. So when I voted for President Obama (like I had a choice) .....

I voted away my right to hold various positions on various issues?

I wasn't aware that he had promised to naturalize the illegal aliens in this country, or to allow more in, or whatever. I did vote with some confidence that he would do what is best for the American citizens. I can't see how amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, not to mention the message that will send over the border, is what's best for the American citizens.

[AlphaCentauri]

72. what's best for the American citizens?

the best for the Americans it's not to have people that can be exploited, people that can contribute to the economy legally and have an immigration policy that address the needs of the country.
will deporting and starving immigrants already in the US solve the problem? NO.

[Romulox]

77. We had an amnesty under Regan; workers still being exploited.

So Amnesty = no workers being exploited doesn't follow.

[AlphaCentauri]

148. Jobs Americans won't do

substituting one group with another

Somalis fill vacant jobs at Iowa meatpacking plant

Nearly three months after a federal immigration raid uprooted almost 400 employees at a meatpacking plant in northeastern Iowa, dozens of Somali immigrants are slowly but steadily filling the depleted ranks left by the arrested workers.
Along Postville's main street, in a storefront that used to hold a mattress store, a dozen Somali men ate dinner and chatted on a recent evening. Some members of the Somali community are renting the room and hope to turn it into a restaurant, said Sadiq Abdi.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-09-2265386181_x.htm

[Abq_Sarah]

169. Will granting amnesty

For breaking the law solve the problem or exacerbate it?

We tried this once before and it was a spectacular failure. American citizens are fighting to keep their heads above water for the next couple of years and I doubt most of them want to take on the financial responsibility for illegal aliens right now. We can't continue to give this country away to the bankers, the brokers or the illegals.

[Romulox]

36. That didn't work for NAFTA. So it's keeping SOME campaign promises, ignoring others. nt

[pampango]

39. McCain's voters will be outraged. McCain knows this which is why he backed off from his own

immigration bill in the presidential campaign. He knew that the repub base doesn't support immigration reform. (Plus they have Rush, Lou, and Fox News to keep the base fired up if this issue comes up again.)

If immigration reform is going to succeed, it will have to be the liberals (led by Kennedy - like in 2007 - if he is healthy enough) who will have to carry the day. If it doesn't succeed, I hope that repubs and conservatives get blamed for its defeat (like in 2007), so we can reap the electoral benefits.

[inwiththenew]

26. What could possibly go wrong

With letting millions of people into a system and giving them social security, medicare, medicaid and other benefits they probably paid nothing into. If we run out of money we can just print more. Not to mention this is a huge slap in the face to everyone who has legally immigrated to this country.

[ima_sinnic]

33. please explain how someone who never paid into Social Security will receive it

I will be checking back for your response.
Your ignorance about the way Social Security works is not surprising considering your reactionary attitude toward immigrants.

[inwiththenew]

41. Lets say

Lets say a person who is here illegally is an older women or man and they are made a legal citizen. When they reach retirement age they will have social security benefits, no? Now maybe by that time they will have paid some into but nothing like someone who has worked in this country their whole life. It is my understanding that if they are made a legal citizen that are entitled to everything a citizen in this country is entitled to as well, which includes medicare, medicaid, social security and any other program like that. Is that not true?

[ima_sinnic]

49. Social Security benefits are based ONLY on what you contribute, and you must work at least

"40 quarters," i.e., a total accumulated 10 years.
Thus, unless an older person can accumulate 10 years of employment, with SS payments paid in during those years, he or she will not get anything.
My husband was a legal resident who was able to work here for a while (until he became very ill and eventually was forced back to his country by the draconian immigration laws that started targeting even minor misdemeanors as grounds for deportation). Every year he would get a SS statement that would say, in essence, "if you were to become disabled now, you would receive $xx.xx per month -- but since you do not have 40 quarters of paid-in employment, you would not receive those benefits."

Someone who does manage to accumulate 10 years of employment will not receive as much as someone who contributed for a lifetime of work, say, 40 years--unless the 10-yr worker had a very high-paying job and happened to contribute as much or more than the 40-yr worker--but there is also a cap on what you contribute and on what you can collect. I'm not sure of the details of that because I would never anticipate being able to make so much money. I'm just an average worker with income well within the "payroll tax" limit.

[Romulox]

61. That's not entirely true. Non-working spouses, e.g, are also eligible

[Summermoondancer]

151. Considering that spouses usually file taxes jointly

that means they pay into the system jointly even if one spouse isn´t working....so what is your point? If your spouse didn´t work they also qualify why should we treat other payors differently?
btw, there is nearly 600 billion dollars in the Social Security suspense fund due to illegal immigrants paying in when you claim they haven´t paid.

[AlphaCentauri]

73. the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file”

1. Immigrants don’t pay taxes
All immigrants pay taxes, whether income, property, sales, or
other. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their
accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay
between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local
taxes. Even undocumented immigrants pay income taxes, as
evidenced by the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file”
(taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and social
security numbers), which grew $20 billion between 1990 and
1998.

2. Immigrants come here to take welfare
Immigrants come to work and reunite with family members.
Immigrant labor force participation is consistently higher than
native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of
the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population
(11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public
benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently
favorable to the U.S., unless the “study” was undertaken by an
anti-immigrant group. In one estimate, immigrants earn about
$240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and
use about $5 billion in public benefits. In another cut of the
data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than
the amount of government services they use.
Due to welfare reform, legal immigrants are severely restricted from accessing public benefits, and undocumented
immigrants are even further precluded from anything other than emergency services. Anti-immigrant groups skew
these figures by including programs used by U.S. citizen children of immigrants in their definition of immigrant
welfare use, among other tactics.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5397314&mesg_id=5397899

[Summermoondancer]

150. You don´t get Social Security Retirement or Medicare without

paying into them and not only do you have to pay into it, but you need quite a bit of time that adds up to about ten years of paying into it before you qualify. So how is it that they won´t have to pay anything into it?

[nvme]

29. It would be unwise for the President to do anything UNTIL

We get a better handle on unemployment. at least get the numbers to start decreasing. If he moves while the job losses are still increasing the opposition will seize on the immigration issue as the reason for job loss and use if for cause celebre to further their agenda. Better for the pres to use the capital on health care. I think that many of these underclass should be brought into the fold while penalizing employers for their undermining of American wages. If you made it here fine get yourself legal pay in and integrate.

[LittleGirl]

30. Reform is needed, here's my story

I want to share my experience about getting my British citizen husband a residence permit to live in the states. Very very very long story short...We went to the embassy in Frankfurt last June and were told it would take 90 days to get a Spouse Visa for my husband. (A green card comes after we land and go through passport control).

Anyway, we started the process 90 days before our 2 yr anniversary. The 2 yr mark is required so that we can get an unconditional resident visa. (A conditional visa means it's good for one year and you have to repeat the process). That was in Sept 08. We paid nearly $1,000 in fees to start the process. We waited for the letter for the next step which was his 'interview'. That didn't come until late February. In addition to the interview, he had to get a medical exam. The doctor checked to make sure he had the parts in his underwear proving he was a Man! He was told at the interview it was approved, the background check would continue with Homeland Security and we would get his visa in 2 weeks. That day alone cost us another $1,000. That was 2 months ago.

Where is the damn Visa? 90 days has turned into 6 months. We've been married 2 yrs and our marriage is not a fraud. We just want to come home! Reform is needed and the costs need to be lowered.

I know now why there are so many illegals in the USA. The current process is expensive, personally intrusive and takes too damn long.

Compare this to coming to Europe to live. We showed them my passport, our marriage license, our apartment lease and gave them a photo to affix on my residence visa. They entered the info into their country wide database and BAM. I have a residence permit. Best part - IT WAS FREE.

Reform is needed for families. Right now! There is no reason to delay this process. We are middle aged degreed professionals. My husband has an MBA and we are stuck here. Keep families together. Our lives are on-hold waiting for this. (sorry for the rant and the long post...touchy subject for me).

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

38. LittleGirl, I feel for you

having worked in immigration for well over 10 years and being an immigrant myself have taught me that the system as it is in place is difficult and expensive to navigate, not to mention quite expensive.

This is why an amnesty, if any, needs to be made restrictive. For instance, the amnesty in 2001 required people to be either sponsored by an employer or by a US citizen close family member (such as spouse or parent) and an additional $1,000 fine on top of all other normally-required USCIS filing fees. Moreover, the applicant had to demonstrate that s/he had lived in the U.S. during a particular period of time (by using such evidence as school records, utility bills, birth certificates, anything else to prove that person was in the U.S.) and s/he could not have a criminal record (defined as two or more misdemeanors or one or more felonies). The applicant also needed to be current with the IRS.

I firmly believe that the system should firstly improve for legal immigrants such as you who are waiting patiently and legally for your green card.

I also believe that any amnesty or pathway to legal residence for anyone who is not in the U.S. legally must be restrictive and must in some way be punitive. To do otherwise is to slap the face of those legal immigrants from around the world who actually follow the law.

[Summermoondancer]

152. Yes, my husband went through over ten years of dealing with the system

before he finally was able to become a citizen...it cost us over ten thousand dollars before we were done and we waited twelve years for his minor child daughter to be given a visa to immigrate.

[AlphaCentauri]

76. Yep, I think amnesty is the way to go

pathway to citizenship is the best way to clean out the house and enforce an immigration law that works.

[Romulox]

34. So...Obama pushes yet ANOTHER one of the Chamber of Commerce's top priorities.

[cottonseed]

188. I thought part of this was a democratic priority?

[eridani]

40. A silly priority during a severe recession

The bad economy is making immigrants a lot more inclined to stay home.

[ardvark]

43. "But the timetable is consistent with pledges Mr. Obama made to Hispanic groups in last year’s campa

isnt that kind of racist?

shouldnt promises be made to ALL Americans, for the benefit of the country?

[Javaman]

46. didn't moron* try this back in 2003 and 2004 and it failed miserably?

Bush seeks legal status
for illegal immigrants
Plan could help GOP with Latinos 92004)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3887721/

WASHINGTON - President Bush called for a major overhaul of America’s immigration system Wednesday to grant legal status to millions of undocumented workers in the United States, saying the current program was not working.

“Out of common sense and fairness, our laws should allow willing workers to enter our country and fill jobs that Americans are not filling,” the president said in an address in the East Room to members of Congress, his Cabinet and immigrant advocacy groups.

Critics of the plan said it amounted to an amnesty for illegal immigrants.


And...

Congress Looks to Grant Legal Status to Immigrants (2003)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/13/us/congress-looks-to-grant-legal-status-to-immigrants.html

[pampango]

50. In the Senate in 2007 his own repubs shot him down. They voted against it 37-12, while

Democrats supported the reform bill 33-15.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/29/nation/na-immig29

"House Republicans passed a symbolic resolution against the Senate bill, 114 to 23." Repubs would have voted overwhelmingly against it in the House if they had been given the chance.

"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the leading Democrat behind the bill, compared immigration reform to other social movements in U.S. history, such as the civil rights movement or the drive for women's rights, struggles that took many years.

"You cannot stop the march for progress in the United States," he said."

[ardvark]

52. if a latino steps foot in Hyanisport, they're either a congressman bringing votes and $

or in a main's uniform bringing him another scotch

[ardvark]

47. Haven't the American People already spoken on this one?

several times

why do our leaders keep shoving things down the citizen's throat?

[Romulox]

59. The US Chamber of Commerce has a LOT of money to "donate" to politicians. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Immigration does not need to be reformed, it needs to be enforced. n/t

[AzDar]

121. ...

:thumbsup:

[AlphaCentauri]

127. of course with a new law

;-)

[lumberjack_jeff]

130. Before I agree to that, I need to know what's wrong with the old ones.

"inconvenient" doesn't cut it.

The fact that it's routinely violated doesn't either.

[AlphaCentauri]

131. They don't work

other wise there would be no discussion on this topic

[Summermoondancer]

153. Inconvenient?

is that what you would call waiting over a decade to bring what was a two year old child when we applied for her visa? She was my husband´s BLOOD daughter...and it took us TWELVE years and you call it just inconvenient? Do you not see something wrong with this picture? Why should a father and daughter be seperated for twelve years?

[lumberjack_jeff]

164. need more information.

I meant inconvenient in the sense that enforcing it is hard work.

Is your husband a citizen? Was the child's mom resistant to the idea?

I'm not amenable to throwing open the borders based on an anecdote unrelated to the issues that "reform" is meant to resolve.

[Summermoondancer]

166. Yes, he is a naturalized citizen

He was a perm resident up until 2006 before that she was not considered a priority because he was just a perm resident...no the mother was actually really very impatient about the situation...she was in the way of her finding a man:(

[ShareTheWoods]

79. illegal is legal, left is right, up is down

We just need to add gun control and raise taxes and the next election years will be party time.

Some things will never make any sense.

[ardvark]

80. If these are jobs 'Americans wont do' wont they stop doing them once they become citizens? nt

[Romulox]

82. Excellent point. nt

[Summermoondancer]

89. So you require them to hold a job in the same field they are in

for at least five years. For instance if they are working in agriculture or construction they must remain in this area for at least five years...not the same company but the same line of work.

[notesdev]

107. sounds like indentured servitude

Last I checked, the Constitution still prohibited it... though someone ought to pass that message along to the financial sector...

[Summermoondancer]

142. No, it is the same requirement as the H1B visa

except the H visa is more strict than what I am asking...I am asking they stay in the same field not the same job, the H visa requires they stay at the same job.

[Honeycombe8]

139. LOL! Yes, that's always been a silly argument. So I guess NO ONE will do those jobs, then.

So we'll have to wait to pick the lettuce until MORE illegal immigrants come into the country, I guess, since Americans won't do that. BTW, I guess we only started planting lettuce when illegal immigrants from Mexico started coming to the country? I mean, since Americans wouldn't pick it, no reason to plant it, right?

And the wealthy Americans didn't have maids.

And we didn't have landscape services. Or hotel service workers.

Gosh, it's amazing we ever got this country up and running without the illegals to do all this stuff for us that WE won't do!

[AlphaCentauri]

146. We have done it before, with slaves, illegals from europe, immigrants from China

and of course Mexicans were there since 1821

[Honeycombe8]

161. We mainly planted and picked our fields with migrant workers, paid little wages.

We mainly have staffed our hotels with minimum wage workers...American citizens (not slaves).

We have only had significant numbers of hispanic illegal immigrants since the last half of the 20th century (the rise of the worship of and influence of the large corporation and increased "global" trade agreements).

We used Chinese immigrants to help build the train tracks...they were LEGAL BTW, for the most part.

If the illegal immigrants were not here...American workers would be doing those jobs.

[LanternWaste]

104. Good... Obama's steadily addressing my Big 3

Good... Obama's steadily addressing my Big 3: Social Safety Net, Environmental Protection, and Immigration. I'm looking forward to hearing him speak about this next month.

[Zavulon]

106. My decision on fines would not take into account their financial position, it would

take into account their regard for our laws. They have none, so my pre-deportation fine would be draconian.

I will never buy into the "gee, it's wrong to punish them for breaking the law."

With the exception of a couple of Cabinet appointments I've been for almost everything Obama has done so far, but I'm against anything that would make the lives of illegals easier (especially if anyone here illegally gets legal status before anyone trying to comply with the law). I prefer that Obama focus on making life easier for those of us here legally first, and then step up law enforcement. Illegals depress wages, strain our social services, and not all of them are filling out 1040s. I don't think they should get breaks for any of that, and will never support any form of amnesty (or whatever words others prefer to use, such as "reform") that gives any break to people who blow off our laws just because they're inconvenient.

I also want "catch and release" replaced with "catch and deport." Enough is enough. No other countries put up with as much illegal immigration bullshit as we do, and it's time we stopped tolerating it. Didn't we learn anything from Reagan's amnesty? That sure worked out well. :eyes:

[Tim01]

108. A lot of words to say amnesty.

[pampango]

116. "Amnesty bill", "socialized medicine", "weak on defense", Rush, Sean, Lou and the Fox boys

are good at coming up and pushing ad nauseum, code words and phrases that fire up the repub base (and some others perhaps?) to defeat complicated legislation designed to deal with complicated issues.

[Honeycombe8]

140. O's plan sounds identical to Bush's "amnesty" plan. Bush. How's that for a recommendation? nt

[pampango]

144. What exactly is Obama's plan? From the OP, he is planning a speech in May, working groups

in the summer and possibly legislation in the fall.

"Mr. Obama plans to speak publicly about the issue in May, administration officials said, and over the summer he will convene working groups, including lawmakers from both parties and a range of immigration groups, to begin discussing possible legislation for as early as this fall."

It sounds like he wants input from a broad spectrum of people before he even draws up a plan. I don't know how you can say his plan is identical to (or different from) anyone else's plan, when his plan is still being developed.

[anonymous171]

112. Build wall, restrict immigration, grant amnesty.

Everyone wins.

[Honeycombe8]

141. I vote against a wall. It won't work & will cost a bundle and harm wildlife. Mainly...

it won't work.

Hit the employers where it hurts. No work, no illegals.

No amnesty. Just let them be. I know we'll lose out on the taxes, but to grant them amnesty sends the wrong message and encourages more illegal immigration. At least that's what history has definitively shown us. Amnesty was granted...I think in the 1980's? After that, the rate of illegal immigration picked up significantly. You only want to do an amnesty plan if your goal is increased illegal immigration.

[Summermoondancer]

154. Walls cost lots of money, don´t work, and make our neigbhors enemies

not only that it destroys the environment, pollutes the water that animals drink, cuts of water to animals that need it on our side of the fence, and cuts it off from the farmers who also need it. Then it costs so much money that we really cannot afford right now...don´t you think we better put our expenditures in rebuilding the broken economy?

[pampango]

178. But walls have a magical quality for many, eg. Chinese, East Germans, French (Siegfried), and

now many Americans. If you can wall the world (or the part of it you don't like) off, you can ignore it. Unfortunately, history has proven that ignoring it doesn't make it go away. In spite of this, walls seem to have retained their image as a solution to problems, in spite of their historical failures.

[riverdeep]

186. Wall won't work.

They'll just dig underneath it.

"In recent years nearly 50 tunnels have been discovered running under the border from San Diego to Arizona. Most are small, crudely constructed passages -- called gopher holes -- that are easily destroyed.

But filling the larger, more elaborate tunnels requires enormous amounts of material and expertise, especially because some were probably designed by mining engineers."

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/30/local/me-tunnel30
("UNFILLED TUNNELS A WEAK LINK AT BORDER")

I'm not against border patrol and cameras and such, but really, you have to stop the REASONS they come here in the first place- mainly jobs. Take away their ability to support themselves, take away their healthcare opportunities, and they will largely avoid coming here. A wall is just an expensive, ineffective, feel-good measure.

[AzDar]

120. A waste of political capital.

Jeebus.

:eyes:

[AlphaCentauri]

129. Not really

it would be a waste of time trying to pass health care reform when the GOP could be blocking it out by raising the immigration issue

[cottonseed]

189. Let's kick this can down the road?

[ardvark]

123. The fact is, mass immigration crushes workers wages - no ifs ands or buts

when did it become taboo to be for stronger wages for workers, and less pressure on the environment?

see this immigration gumballs video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq39FOFIEIQ

part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB0Us_mYohE&feature=related

about 15 minutes total

Every 'Immigration reform' proposed will allow in WAY more immigration into a totally glutted depression job market, and swamp our social services, that we're borrowing from China to pay for

These policies will leave the American middle and working classes forever destitute

[pampango]

197. Perhaps not. "Labor groups reach accord" to endorse "legalizing the status of illegal immigrants".

"“If the unions think they’re going to push a bill through without the support of the business community, they’re crazy,” said Randel Johnson, the chamber’s vice president of labor, immigration and employee benefits."

" The two labor federations have agreed in the past to proposals that would give legal status to illegal immigrants . But in 2007 the A.F.L.-C.I.O. parted ways with the service employees and several other unions when it did not support legislation put forth by the Bush administration because it contained provisions for an expanded guest-worker program.

"“In our current economic crisis, Americans cannot afford to lose more jobs to illegal workers,” said Representative Steve King, an Iowa Republican who sits on the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration. “American workers are depending on President Obama to protect their jobs from those in America illegally.”"

"A.F.L.-C.I.O. officials said they agreed with Change to Win leaders that, with more than seven million unauthorized immigrants already working across the nation, legalizing their status would be the most effective way to protect labor standards for all workers

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/us/14immig.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Perhaps the Chamber of Commerce and repubs in Congress can help anti-immigration liberals defeat immigration reform again. Can't let President Obama and those unions get what they think is good for all workers.

[scrinmaster]

128. Woohoo, just what we need.

We already have massive unemployment, the last thing we need now is a bunch of unskilled cheap labor to drive wages even further down.

[getthefacts]

132. If everybody is so concerned about

jobs disappearing, people should be complaining about the thousands of jobs we are shipping overseas every year. Immigrants generate more economical drive and legalizing who is already here, already working will help, not hurt, the economy.
Companies don't care about bringing cheap labor in. They can always look for it elsewhere. Immigration reform is a social and human rights issue more than an economical issue. Today, we have allowed for an underclass of people which is contrary to what this country stands for. Immigration laws are outdated. Just ask anyone who had to immigrate to this country. It is a bureaucratic nightmare filled with quotas pulled out of thin air and years, sometimes a decade or more, of wait.
The system needs reforming.

[Romulox]

133. So the California vinyards, e.g, don't care about bringing cheap labor in?

Of course they do.

[SlowDownFast]

155. Plenty of newly unemployed US citizens would gladly take those jobs. n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

181. if they are forced to take those jobs

other wise there would be long lines of people trying to apply for them







?size=67&uid=%7BAE813CB1-239E-461E-A134-414681004AE1%7D

[ardvark]

134. Indian Commerce Minister called H-1b 'The Outsourcing Visa'

Guest workers visas CAUSE outsourcing

[notesdev]

162. But the whole point of hiring them

is that they can be hired more cheaply and with fewer protections than US labor. The only thing particularly special about illegal aliens is that they don't demand the standards that Americans have worked so hard to achieve. If, by amnesty, they become genuine US labor, they will get more money and more protections - and the ethically-backwards companies who hire them today will discard them for the next round of illegal aliens, or offshore slave laborers. Then we just end up adding millions to the poorest and least literate portion of our citizenry.

That won't be good for civil order or our budgets. I have long held that health care or amnesty is an either/or choice. There is no way that we will have the money to do both, especially not with the economy going south in a big way.

[ryanmuegge]

147. More downward pressure on wages and devastation for state budgets.

Low-skill, illegal labor is one reason why this country is crumbling. The last thing this country needs is opening the door to an increase in low-skill, illegal immigrants that make terrible wages and do not pay taxes.

Ideologically, I'm guessing this is another part in these politicians' crazy globalization agenda to destroy all physical borders, privacy, freedom, and national soverignty. Both the Republicans and Democrats (at least the politicians at the national level) are all for unlimited, unregulated low-skill immigration.

And why make this such a huge priority? Jesus Christ. We need to figure out how to raise the standard of living for the majority of people who are already here, rather than worrying about letting more people in. I realize that immigration and the economy are closely related, but shouldn't Obama be more concerned with creating jobs than focusing on immigration?

[pampango]

160. "(N)ow might be the perfect time to debate the issue." - HuffPo

"The political climate is ripe for it. Obama has admitted that, yes, immigration reform can be a minefield , but what better time to drag Republicans over a few mines ? The GOP appears committed to their strategy of opposing the president as unanimously as possible; when they oppose immigration reform, when they once again begin their paranoid berating of immigrants , when they once again feed the panicked xenophobia of their ever diminishing base, they might well succeed in making Hispanics a reliable Democratic voting bloc for a generation."

"There are, to be sure, some serious risks in addressing immigration reform during an economic crisis. If the White House fails to persuade the public that immigration reform would have a positive impact on the economy, the president faces presenting Republicans with their first winning issue of 2009. The battle cry from the right will undoubtedly be that Democrats are bringing millions of new workers into an economy short on jobs ."

"(In 2006) Republicans let their nativism run wild , making vicious anti-immigrant proclamations a center piece of their primary campaign. In doing so, they caused what might end up being the most significant realignment in American politics since the south abandoned Lyndon Johnson's Democratic Party. In 2004, John Kerry won the national Hispanic vote, 53-44. In 2008, Obama took it 67-31. In a state like New Mexico, that meant a Democrat winning by 15 points instead of losing by one. It also meant sizable electoral swings in other southwest states, including Colorado and Nevada, and played a significant role in Obama's victory in Florida."

[riverdeep]

165. Well, that settles it.

Bill Clinton will go down as the only two-term Democrat in the last half century.

Democrats: stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.

[AlphaCentauri]

167. Fear for change will take us no where n/t

[riverdeep]

171. Oh, I want change, he's just changing in the opposite direction.

We need to secure our borders, not make them even more permeable. The ones that are here, need to be returned to the point of origin, when caught. What's amazing is that this very basic policy, WHICH IS WHAT EVERY OTHER COUNTRY DOES, is somehow seen as radically conservative. Try going to Mexico illegally and telling them that you DEMAND certain things, you'll be at the border so fast (if you're lucky), it'll make your sombrero spin.

I don't believe we have go out and 'round up' illegals, I think if we target businesses they will eventually leave of their own accord. All this crap Obama is proposing does is encourage and reward illegal behavior. What about people from Thailand who've gone through the process legally? Laws for some and not for others? I think not.

[AlphaCentauri]

182. What about the people from Thailand that have a tourist visa expired?

are they here legally?
most of the immigration debate just focus on the dehumanization of Mexicans with false assumptions that other nations or communities do not produce illegal immigration.
Many benefit from keeping Chinese, Thailands, Indians illegally, often those immigrants are kept as slaves working for food and housing.

[blue97keet]

192. Workplace enforcement with E-verify does not require

random mass round-ups or racial profiling. If it has technical problems then the social security database has the same technical problems. Mass deportation is not necessary if the job incentive is shut down. Border security is necessary for all the obvious national security reasons, illegal immigration or not. Identity theft is not an immigration issue, neither is national security.

[freemarketer6]

180. Exactly. Even beyond Obama's FISA stance, his immigration

intentions will end his presidency. I have never seen people so mad. Who will the Dems run in 2012, if not Obama? And what will it mean for the Party? Will people summarily vote against Democrats en mass? I've never seen that before. Who is controlling Obama's agenda? I wish there was an unmonitored room here where one could say what one really felt. Yes, things are looking very bad; I am more surprised than I thought possible. I really thought Obama would steer a course toward truth.

[gulfcoastliberal]

168. This legislation is written by the National Chamber of Commerce to further distort and drive down

wages.

Go to their website and check out the position on immigration. This isn't progressive, this is getting shafted for the 40th trillion time.

[riverdeep]

172. No kidding.

What so-called progressives don't realize, is people like Cesar Chavez (formed United Farm Workers) tried like hell to STOP illegal immigration. It is not a long term solution to anything except the profits of unethical businesses.

[AlphaCentauri]

183. César Chávez and Dolores Huerta fought a federal law that prohibited hiring illegal immigrants in

1973

[pampango]

179. If you're into guilt by association, check out the websites of Rush, Sean and the other RW talking

heads and see what their position is on immigration. Both sides have "bedfellows" we could do without, but it doesn't further our discussion to cast the "bedfellows" stone.

[Tim01]

170. plan to make legal status possible for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants

I've probably got it all wrong. Taking 12 million illegal aliens an making them legal, is nothing like amnesty. All too complicated for me to understand.

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

175. How would amnesty damage you, exactly?

[Tim01]

176. Drives unemployment up for Americans, and wages down.

Too many workers, not enough jobs.

[EFerrari]

187. That's impossible. Those workers are ALREADY HERE.

And amnesty would allow them to get HIGHER wages, so wages would go UP.

[Tim01]

193. They are illegal, they don't have real jobs.

Working on a daily basis for cash is not a real job.
Amnesty will give them all the ability to compete with Americans for real jobs. Flooding the market with new workers will drive wages and conditions down. "Don't like the conditions here? There's the front door. There's a dozen new workers who would love to work in these conditions for half of what you are getting paid."

[EFerrari]

194. Try it again. Unemployment won't go UP because these workers

are ALREADY here. Amnesty is the opposite of a flood of new workers.

Wages will go UP when these workers are legal because their employers will have to pay them scale.

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Tim01]

195. One last time.

They are not legal workers with taxes and social security and all the deductions. If they are given amnesty there will suddenly be an additional 12 million workers competing for the real jobs. They are not working real jobs now. They are hanging out in front of convenience stores waiting for a guy in a pick up truck to hire them for $60.00 for the day, cash. If they are given amnesty the will be turning in applications for the hourly jobs with benefits.

They do not compete for the real jobs now.

They will compete for the real jobs if they are given amnesty.

I'm not going round and round with you on this if you refuse to admit that illegal aliens do not work the same jobs as American citizens.

[EFerrari]

196. Wrong. Illegal aliens are paying into Social Security no matter what Lou Dobbs tells you.

In fact, they are probably carrying it right now.

If they get amnesty, the jobs they work will have to offer better wages. Those jobs will become "real".

[cottonseed]

190. These are people that are allready here. How does it drive unemployment?

Anyway, instead of find a way to deport 12 million people, I can't understand why we don't just punish employers.