Should illegal immigrants be deported?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Poll question: Should illegal immigrants be deported?

Or should we just not enforce our immigration laws?

[MercutioATC]

1. Not exactly unbiased, but funny :)

[7th_Sephiroth]

2. the law is the law

and thier not here legally

[Placebo]

6. ABSOLUTELY.

Once they are found, send them back to their country of origin.

[NightTrain]

44. Apartheid was the law in South Africa.

And in Nazi Germany, the law stated that Jews couldn't own property. So what's your point?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. Good thing they changed that law. I don't think selective enforcement

would have been as an effective long-term solution.

[0rganism]

50. CHANGE THE LAW, that's the freakin' point

Don't just let people wander around like second-class citizens with second-class rights, get them work visas and help them come in 100% legally.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. But, but, we need a permanent underclass with no rights that can

be exploited by businesses who need cheap labor. What you propose could THREATEN PROFITS!!!

[uhhuh]

72. Nope

We have to start revoking the charters of companies who violate the law..... or deport them.

First offense: huge fine.

Second offense: out of business.

Another idea: Personnel assigned to guard this country's borders like a prison should be reassigned to processing applications for residency in the country and to run background checks.

Everyone not found to be a criminal or other danger, who can demonstrate that they have skills or education that they can use here, and/or who has a sponsor living here should be let in immediately.

Applications should take two or three days tops.

Citizenship should be granted after one year to those who can demonstrate that they are law abiding and have or can prove they are actively seeking gainful employment.

During their time of residency, the applicant will be given ALL the rights of citizens, except perhaps the right to vote. They will also have the responibilities of a citizen(paying federal and state taxes, etc.)

The smaller number of criminals that would still try to cross the border illegally will be easily handled by the smaller, more agile, INS.

A national minimum wage shall be instituted, and any company that moves more than 20%-30% of its jobs overseas, that do not have a product or service that requires that they operate there shall be considered to be expatriated and subject to the tariffs and taxes of a foriegn entity.

I think the U.S. government should stop signing anti-worker treaties with other countries like NAFTA or GATT or CAFTA, and impose sanctions on other nations that punish their people for living where they were born.

Since this won't be done, I accept that there will be an underclass of undocumented people who still believe in the lie that this is the land of freedom and opportunity. They will continue to migrate here, and toil in unfair and unsafe working conditions, and may one day, a few decades from now, be acknowledged for the sacrifices and bigotry they have had to endure to support the longer term former immigrant's complacent lifestyle.

It's sick. We have a diseased system.

While it is diseased, while we have no justice for legal or illegal poor people, I do belive we SHOULD overlook the fact that productive, non-violent people who keep this corporate sham afloat don't have the right papers to be considered our legal friends and neighbors.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. I'm sorry that my irony was lost on you.

[uhhuh]

77. No, I got it

It seemed like a good place to discuss the issue of corporate exploitation of workers, legal and otherwise.

[7th_Sephiroth]

54. the point is, there are procedures

checks and balances one must go through to make sure the person is not a terrorist or a wanted murderer fleeing from thier country

[uhhuh]

64. Unless they are Cuban

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. That is the current policy. Do you agree with it, or should it be changed?

[7th_Sephiroth]

70. cuba is a different situation

we need to drop all that anti-cuba policy crap

[Osama_Bin_Winnin]

3. PUSH that poll

[maveric]

4. If so your produce would cost 3 X as much...

Hotel room rates would at least double and meals in restaurants would be a little more.
California NEEDS illegal workers to keep the economy afloat.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. If the law is wrong, it should be changed.

[MercutioATC]

11. Also, your tax base would be larger and more Americans would have jobs.

Nobody NEEDS illegal workers...

[69KV]

13. Produce prices

I happen to be one of those who wants to see the agricultural industry unionized, fair wages and benefits paid to ag workers, and wage and labor laws strictly enforced.

That would of course force prices up. But is there any evidence that produce would go up 3x and hotel rooms double? I doubt it. We'd be looking at a 5% increase at most. In the case of hotels, probably no increase at all since room rates are outrageously inflated as it is, driven by corporate business travel.

I don't mean to disparage what you're saying here but the "cheap produce" argument is not a good one. Let's put agribusiness back on a level playing field where they have to compete with family farms, and the labor market back on a level playing field where hiring illegal laborers is no longer economically advantageous because labor and wage laws are strictly enforced. I'd be more than willing to pay 5 cents more for an apple to see fair wages, benefits, and union representation for ag workers.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. Thank you.

The argument that we need a permanent illegal underclass seems to me to be a particularly specious one.

[-..__...]

38. "California NEEDS illegal workers to keep the economy afloat."

That's pretty sad when you think about it... that the economy of one state is dependant on illegal/slave/cheap labor.

[0rganism]

62. But our plantations need slaves to harvest the cotton!

How can we provide cheap cotton to the nation without our peculiar institution?

[K-W]

5. Only if John McCain gives up his black child.

Hooray for Push polls.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. A choice between enforcing the law, or changing it, and not enforcing it

How is that a false choice?

[K-W]

14. Because it is a false choice.

If people believe that undocumented immigrants shouldnt be deported, then they believe the law should reflect that. You are mixing up two issues. 1. Should laws be enforced. 2. Should undocumented immigrants be deported.

Why dont you create a poll that actually asks a question rather than trying to get people to answer the way you want them to.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Your post makes no sense.

You are mixing up two issues. 1. Should laws be enforced. 2. Should undocumented immigrants be deported.

Actually, since that is the law, it is not two separate issues.

[K-W]

23. Where are you getting confused?

You should have simply asked:

"Should undocumented immigrants be deported?"

Yes or No

Next time you create a poll try not to let your bias show through.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. I'm not confused, you are just wrong that's all.

Maybe it's the first time, so you aren't used to it.

Should pot smokers be arrested?

Yes, pot smokers should be arrested, or the law should be changed.

No, pot smokers should be allowed to smoke pot, in violation of our laws.

Biased question?

[K-W]

31. Your poll is misleading.

The question in your topic is: "Should illegal immigrants be deported?" You then clarify your question with: "Or should we just not enforce our immigration laws?"

The question is loaded and leading. It only gives two options, should the law be enforced, or not be enforced. It doesnt aknowledge the option that the laws could be changed. And if this were a fair poll about immigration policy, the option of changing the policy should certainly be included.

In the actual poll, Option one is "Yes, deport them, or change the laws." Now you didnt really ask a yes or no question, so that is confusing to begin with, then you include deport them in the same category as changing the laws, which you didnt even include in your original question.

It seems to me now, after reading it again you are trying to find out if people support not enforcing immigration laws that call for deportation of undocumented immigrants.

If that was your question, then why didnt you just ask it? Instead you put up a confusing poll that mixes the issue of whether or not they should be deported into things.

So why dont you not blame me for the fact that your poll is confusing and suspiciously so?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[K-W]

55. wow, quote me out of context, great work.

You didnt include an option that the laws could be changed in your poll question.

You did include it in the poll. Thats what my post said, thus it was not a lie.

but thanks for spinning my post

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. Your post is false

It doesnt aknowledge the option that the laws could be changed.

That is a false and deceptive statement. There is a word for that, but apparently some of the mods don't understand the difference between criticizing a post and a poster, so it will remain unsaid.

[uhhuh]

39. The problem

And I know you know this, is, some people may believe that the laws should be changed, some people may believe that the laws shouldn't be changed. You are asking both these groups to agree that illegal immigrants should be deported.

The second half of the question only allows for people to vote that the laws should be maintained, but not enforced.

There may be people who believe that the laws should be changed AND that until they are, we should not focus so heavily on enforcement.

IT IS A BIASED POLL!!! And you are not stupid, so you know it.

[Dookus]

40. exactly

pretending that the poll is unbiased is just ludicrous, and it's from somebody I KNOW should know better.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. The problem is that you mistated my poll.

The question is whether illegal immigrants should be deported.

Since that is the law now, deporting illegal immigrants means enforcing the law, allowing them to stay means ignoring the law.

[K-W]

48. Once again you use manipulative language.

The question isnt whether illegal immigrants should be deported.

That isnt your question at all.

The question in your poll is should the law be enforced while it is the law?

Now if I think the law is wrong, then I think illegal immigrants shouldnt be deported, that does not neccessarily mean I think the law shouldnt be enforced, it could very well mean I think the law should be changed.

But you continue to throw those two questions together as if there are only two options, follow the law, or disobey the law. In this country laws arent devine edicts, they can be changed.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. When I am confronted with a dishonest or nonsensical argument

it is usually a sign that no productive discussion will be forthcoming.

The question isnt whether illegal immigrants should be deported.

That isnt your question at all.

:wtf:

Your statement is simply, obviously, and unambiguously false.

[Dookus]

59. at least 4 people in this thread

have pointed out that the wording was unfair or biased. Why defend it so vigorously?

Read the way I started my poll on health care for immigrants - people didn't know HOW I felt on the subject based on my wording. If you want to really find out how people feel on a subject, you should word your question accordingly.

Nobody has any doubt how you feel on the issue after reading your question.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. Yet 44 people have voted so far.

So maybe the fact that four people got upset is not really such a big deal.

Look I personally think that having a permanent underclass with no legal rights that businesses can exploit for cheap labor is a bad idea. I won't try to state your position because although I believe I understand it, I think people should be allowed to speak for themselves.

[K-W]

65. 44 people voted in your confusing poll with multiple questions.

Congrats.

You ask and either/or question and then turn it into a different yes or no question.

[Dookus]

67. My position is that

people who come here and work hard and contribute shouldn't be demonized or threatened with deportation for seeking health care.

I believe we should have a guest-worker program that guarantees rights for these workers. I believe such workers should be given the opportunity to become citizens.

I believe we should treat them with respect and dignity. I believe they contribute more than they take, and we should acknowledge that.

I also believe your poll is very poorly worded if you were trying to accurately gauge people's feelings on the subject.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

86. Well

people who come here and work hard and contribute shouldn't be demonized or threatened with deportation for seeking health care.

As far as I know, seeking health care is not against the law, or in any other way grounds for being deported.

I believe we should have a guest-worker program that guarantees rights for these workers. I believe such workers should be given the opportunity to become citizens.

I agree.

I believe we should treat them with respect and dignity.

I believe that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity.

I also believe your poll is very poorly worded if you were trying to accurately gauge people's feelings on the subject.

I understood the first time you said it, that you wished I had asked a different poll question. 50 posts from now, I will still understand it. You are welcome to post your own poll with the question you prefer if you so desire.

[Dookus]

92. But you have argued

elsewhere that undocumented workers who seek health care SHOULD be deported.

Yes, I have repeated my point. As have you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

93. That is not true.

And I repeat, when you attempt to state what you supposedly think my position is, you always get it wrong. You should stick to stating your position and commenting on what I actually say.

people who come here and work hard and contribute shouldn't be demonized or threatened with deportation for seeking health care.

As far as I know, seeking health care is not against the law, or in any other way grounds for being deported.

But you have argued elsewhere that undocumented workers who seek health care SHOULD be deported.

That is not true. This is what I have argued: We should provide health care to our citizens and legally resident aliens. Emergency care in life-threatening situations should never be denied to anyone for any reason. Laws should either be enforced, or changed. People who are in our country illegally should be deported.

[Dookus]

94. OK...

Let's settle this - you've been playing coy too long.

If an undocumented alien goes to a hospital for care, do you believe the hospital should report that person to INS and do you then think he or she should be deported?

You have DEFINITELY argued that position in another thread. It is unbelievably disingenuous for you now to pretend you haven't argued that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

95. OK

If an undocumented alien goes to a hospital for care, do you believe the hospital should report that person to INS and do you then think he or she should be deported?

I don't know what you mean by an 'undocumented alien' -- is that some kind of politically correct term for an illegal immigrant?

But I think in the case of anyone who goes to a hospital for care, if the hospital discovers evidence of a crime -- for example, if they are the victim of a gunshot wound, or if they are an illegal immigrant, an escaped convict, or a missing child -- they should provide that evidence to the appropriate legal authority.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

97. I'm sorry you are pretending you didn't understand my answer.

But I'm not sorry you are upset about it.

[Dookus]

98. I'm not upset

I'm just curious why you repeatedly refuse to answer yes or no.

Your statements SEEM to indicate that your answer is "yes". But that leads me to question why you said I was mistaken when I said you support deporting people who seek medical care.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. Why should I have to answer questions in the form you require?

I don't insist you phrase your posts a certain way. You can say whatever you want as far as I'm concerned, and I reserve the right to speak my mind in the way that I choose.


But that leads me to question why you said I was mistaken when I said you support deporting people who seek medical care.

I believe your apparent obtuseness on this issue is intentional. I can only repeat what I said before, seeking medical care is not illegal and it is not grounds for being deported.

[Dookus]

100. but please

indulge my obtuseness.

If a person who is here illegally seeks medical care, do you think that person should be reported to the appropriate authorites and deported?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

101. My answer is unchanged from before. See posts 86, 93, 95, and 99

BTW, you apparently misunderstood me again. I didn't say you were being obtuse, I said I believed you were intentionally putting forth the false appearance of obtuseness.

[Dookus]

102. You have not yet

answered Yes or No.

If your answer is Yes, as you keep implying, then tell me why you said I was mistaken for stating so.


on edit: yes or no? Which is it? It's a very simple question.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

103. I'm under no obligation to obey you.

You can demand I say the words you want me to say all you want, however you are powerless to compel me to obey you.

[Dookus]

104. LOL

I'm not trying to compel you to say anything. I'm asking you to clarify something.

It's odd you refuse to answer a simple question. It's even odder you implied I was a liar for stating your position. You can clear it up by typing two or three keys:

Do you think undocumented aliens who seek medical care should be reported and deported?

Why skirt around the issue? Why accuse me of misrepresenting you? The answer the question above is either Yes or No. I asserted your answer was yes, and you effectively called me a liar. Redeem yourself by either answering "No" or apologize. Your games are growing tiresome. If you have convictions, stick with them and express them. You seem to like arguing about niggling details more than actually making a point.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

105. LOL yourself

I've been perfectly clear, and I don't believe that what I've said is not clear to you.

I accept the fact that you aren't happy with my answer -- but I don't care, or, if I care at all, I guess you could say it amuses me, slightly.

[Dookus]

107. and yet you refuse

to say why you accused me of misrepesenting you.

Anyone reading this thread can see clearly that I have given you every opportunity to express your position clearly and you have refused to do so.

I'm sure it's great fun for you to play this game, but for the purposes of legitimate discussion:

Do you believe undocumented aliens who attempt to get health-care should be reported and deported?

Yes or no?

I don't expect you'll answer - I just like pointing out that you are a vicious non-truth-teller for accusing me of saying I misrepresented you.

On edit: And if you think the question itself is unfair, please explain why.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. Another false statement. I showed specifically in post 93

how you misrepresented me.

But you have argued elsewhere that undocumented workers who seek health care SHOULD be deported.

That is not true. This is what I have argued: We should provide health care to our citizens and legally resident aliens. Emergency care in life-threatening situations should never be denied to anyone for any reason. Laws should either be enforced, or changed. People who are in our country illegally should be deported.


There may be other misrepresentations on your part, but this is one I have already specifically noted.

[Dookus]

109. OK

Anybody can read this thread and the other one in question and determine your position, which you refuse to state clearly here.

I have always liked you and respected your views here, but this thread has convinced me that you enjoy playing silly games and using evasion and silly trickery in favor of stating your positions and arguing for them.

You have clearly stated that you think undocumented aliens who try to get medical care should be reported and deported. Yet you won't say so directly. Why? Are you ashamed of your position?

It is incomprehensible to me that you could so vigorously support that position while calling me a liar for describing it. That takes real balls.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

110. Another false statement.

calling me a liar

I did no such thing. I don't believe you are a liar.

[Dookus]

111. I'll try again

just for kicks and giggles.

Do you believe people who are here illegally should be reported to the authorities if they try to access health care?

Do you believe they should be deported as a result?

Why do you refuse to answer this? Why did you call me "mistaken" for stating that you believe the answer to the questions above is "yes"?

So let's be explicit:

A) Do you believe what I asserted you believe?
B) Were you wrong to call me "mistaken" for saying so?

You can save yourself a whole lot of typing by simply answering the questions "yes" or "no". I suspect you won't do so, though, given your history here. But I'm an eternal optimist. It really shouldn't be difficult - the questions are not very complicated.

If you do, somehow, find the questions unfair, please explain why that is true.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

112. I accept the idea that you are unhappy with my answer.

Which I have previously given in posts 86, 93, 95, and 99.

But I still don't understand why you think I should have to phrase my posts in terms you approve of.

[Dookus]

113. I'm really stupid and thick

Can you provide a simple yes or no answer to appease my density?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

114. There was a big news story recently about someone demanding a yes or no

Bush, whose administration cited the weapons and alleged terrorist links to justify the war, challenged the Democratic presidential nominee on Friday at a campaign rally in Stratham, N.H., to tell voters whether intelligence disclosures since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 would have altered his position on the war. ''My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq," Bush said. ''The American people deserve a clear yes-or-no answer."

In response, Kerry, distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing the action said, ''Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Kerry has said the decision to invade rested with the president.

Then, in his most direct challenge to Bush about the war, Kerry listed four questions for the president, inquiring about prewar intelligence, postwar planning, the lack of efforts to bring other nations into the war as allies, and why Americans were misled about the war.

And unlike Bush, who never mentioned Kerry by name during his New Hampshire campaign stop, the Massachusetts senator said, ''My question to President Bush is: Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?

''There are four not-hypothetical questions -- like the president's -- (but) real questions that matter to Americans, and I hope you'll get the answers to those questions, because the American people deserve them," Kerry said.
http://tinyurl.com/3k2js

[K-W]

60. Try reading your own poll again.

You gave two options in your poll, options that didnt relate much to your poll question, but regardless.

Option 1: "Yes, deport them, or change the laws."
This one option includes both the people who think the law is right and who think the law should be changed.

Option 2: "No, once they get here they should be allowed to stay, in violation of our laws."
This option is only for someone who believes that we shold ignore the laws and not deport immigrants.

Thus it does not in any way shape or form ask if Illegal immigrants should be deported. If I think they shouldnt be deported, but the law should be enforced until changed, i would vote for option 1. If I thought they shouldnt be deported and we shouldnt enforce such laws, I would vote for option 2.

Therefore your question does NOT destinguish between supporters and opponants of deportation, it only destinguishes between those who think we should enforce the law and those who think we shouldnt.

[uhhuh]

58. Nope

That's not the question. If it was, you could have just said " Should illegal immigrants be deported?" or "Should we enforce immigration Law?"

You asked supporters of changing the laws to agree with those who don't want to change the laws, but have them both say that illegal immigrants should be deported.

In the second half of the question, the only option you gave was to ignore the laws. You don't give an option to change the laws for this group, you imply that those who answer here don't want immigration reform ,but support lawless behavior regardless.

You know this is true. Why don't you just admit it.

I'm not even writing this for you anymore. It it for those who might see this poll as fair.

[gatlingforme]

8. Hee, hee, we should deport George- I know he is mentally illegal

[Cleita]

10. Does this apply to all the illegal Europeans and Australians

coming here through Canada, or is it just one border that has you upset?

[MercutioATC]

15. All of 'em, as far as I'm concerned...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Absolutely. The law is the law.

Your attempt to imply that I am a racist is a dishonest and despicable tactic. :puke:

[Cleita]

21. Just had to ask.

This is a dispicable and racist post. :puke:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. Now that you have specifically accused me of racism

I would ask what is the racist element in the post you describe as: 'a dispicable and racist post' ?


What was it that I said that caused that reaction, and what race have you determined I am prejudiced against, and which of the words I used led you to that conclusion? Or is there nothing racist in my post and this a simple case of projection?

[Cleita]

33. Cute!

Keep talking!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. What is it that I said that caused you to accuse me of racism?

[K-W]

32. If the law was racist, wouldnt supporting the law be racist too?

Im not saying it is or you are, just that the "law being the law" isnt a good defense. At one point slavery was the law.

[Cleita]

34. Exactly K-W.

It doesn't make it right or moral.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. If the law is racist, it is unconstitutional. Have you heard of the 14th

amendment?

Racism is wrong. Bad laws should be repealed or amended. Are those two statements really controversial? :wtf:

[Dookus]

12. what idiotic wording

[Disturbed]

17. Laws

If the laws that are on the books now would be strictly enforced the problem wouldn't be as huge as it is.

[Dookus]

18. Yes

it's worked so well with drug laws.

[DaveSZ]

19. Yes

But we do need immigration reform and tighter border security.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Are you saying those laws shouldn't be changed, but rather, selectively

enforced, according to the whims of the administration in power?

[mitchtv]

106. yes the laws should be changed, Yes, we should deport them

No, the law will never be changed , and No, we will never deport them. the problem could be solved easier by throwing those who hire them in jail, and fine them so they lose their farms or businesses. A quik change in the law would come then. A strong union movement would help. Also , not gonna happen.

[Strelnikov_]

29. That Is Why I Favor A Guest Worker Program

The drug problem, and the labor black market, can both be better dealt with by addressing demand, not by trying to stop supply.

[IronLionZion]

24. Change the fucking laws

Border states like Arizona take it up the ass because of immigrants. I say let them work legally and TAX THEM, or send them back. But we can't have them working ILLEGALLY and NOT PAYING BLOODY TAXES!!!!

McCain knows what's up, and I imagine Napolitano and Richardson feel the same way.

[Strelnikov_]

25. Yes, Until There Is A Guest Worker Program

Then everyone is welcome, as guests.

<cut and paste from another thread since the issue is the same>

All the current immigration policy of this country does is create a black market for labor, exploiting those who are here illegally, and driving down the wages and working conditions so for legal residents the job is a step backward.

As an example, Midwestern meatpacking jobs paid a middle class wage ($20/hr+ in 2000 $) in the 70's. These jobs provided good health care and retirement benefits because they were unionized. As was related by a worker from this era, the social contract was that it was hard, dangerous work that left most workers crippled when they retired, and the compensation was commiserate.

Over the 70's and 80's non-union plants were opened, and the unionized plants closed or the unions busted. As compensation was much lower at the non-union plants, U.S. citizens abandoned the industry, and the labor void was filled with immigrants. Since the supply of this labor is virtually unlimited, compensation and workplace safety has plummeted.

The 70's era worker, in the interview I heard, indicated that there would be no problem attracting U.S. citizens to the industry if compensation and workplace conditions were similar to the 70's.

So, it appears to me that uncontrolled immigrant labor fills a void that it perpetuates, low wages that make the jobs undesirable due to an oversupply of labor, the classic supply/demand relationship.

What we need a guest worker program to stop the exploitation of immigrants and end the flooding of the labor market due to uncontrolled immigration.

Some thoughts on immigration policy from John Sayles which I think sums up my feelings on this issue.

John Sayles
From:A People's Democratic Platform
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040802&c=5&s=for...

"The Democratic platform should call for an end to the hypocrisy of our immigration policy. Our current policy, an enormously expensive cat-and-mouse game, most notably on our southern border, calls on the INS to enforce immigration laws that are openly expected to be ignored by countless US industries and private employers. Some sort of regulated guest-worker program is needed.

Once it is in place, if immigrants continue to enter the country illegally and can't find work, word will filter back and the numbers will decrease dramatically. While in our country, however, those guest workers need to be protected from exploitation--to be assured they will be paid for their work, that their working conditions will meet state and federal safety standards and that they will receive no less than the federally mandated minimum wage (which needs to be raised).

Employers would be required to withhold some percentage (perhaps the equivalent of federal taxes and Social Security) from wages to help defray the costs of the program. Penalties for hiring foreign workers outside of the program would be high enough (and sufficiently enforced) to end the black market in labor that is thriving now.

Protecting all workers in this country is an important first step toward the amendment or abolition of NAFTA and the protection of workers throughout the world."

[Cleita]

28. Until our fearless leaders pressure Mexico to change their labor laws,

and until we come to some kind of dialogue to address this problem on our side of the border other than treating desparate people like slaves, unscrupulous corporations will continue to exploit the situation.

[IronLionZion]

26. If only the Indians had done that....

yeah I agree that uncontrolled immigration is bad.

Castro likes to empty his prisons into Florida every now and then.

[Cleita]

36. The Native Americans did introduce the Europeans to

tobacco?

[K-W]

41. Good thing we killed them off and introduced the enlightened nation state.

Where we could pretend to love immigrants as long as we needed cheap labor and then shun them when we decided we didnt.

[defoliate_bush]

35. That's a tough one.

For one thing, I think we need better immigration laws. Also, I think that if someone who crosses the border illegaly is living in the United States with no objection, something should be done. We need better regulations for illegal aliens.

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[NightTrain]

42. That's the kind of poll Ed Anger of the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS would conduct.

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

43. Change the laws

We need to document workers with a priority towards reuniting families. And document who their employer is and give them union rights so we can make sure they're getting paid a fair wage. But it has to be done right, not just a way to get cheap labor.

[Cleita]

52. You are Utopian aren't you?

If only it could be done.

[DaveSZ]

56. I support a guest worker program

that screens everyone to make sure no Al Qaeda types are let into the country.

Then border security should be beefed up on both the Mexican and Canadian borders.

[sandnsea]

73. Not that complicated

Extending The American Dream, Reforming America’s Immigration Laws
For Immediate Release

Today at the National Council of La Raza’s annual conference, John Kerry will continue to talk about his plans to open the doors of opportunity and expand access to the American Dream, including reforming America’s immigration laws.

Kerry strongly supports responsible reform of our immigration laws that honors our tradition as a nation of immigrants and that will make America stronger. Today, our immigration system is broken. Each year, hundreds seeking a better life in our country die in the desert, often at the hands of cruel smugglers. Millions within our borders live and work in hiding, in fear and often abused. President Bush came to office promising a new approach to immigration, but his failure to take real action illustrates his indifference to this issue. His immigration outline, which he still has not formally introduced, would lock immigrant workers into a second-class status, driving down wages and safety standards for all working people in America.

Kerry has a different approach. He will offer a reform bill in his first 100 days that allows immigrants to earn legalization, encourages family reunification, and strengthens our border protections. By reforming our immigration laws, Kerry will honor America’s promise and strengthen America’s economy and security. Kerry will:

Immediately Sign Two Bipartisan Reform Bills



Reward Students Who Study Hard and Play by the Rules. John Kerry strongly supports the DREAM Act, sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), which will give young people who consider the United States their home, who have worked hard in school, and have stayed out of trouble the chance to go to college and pursue their dreams. The DREAM Act has broad bipartisan support and would be law today if George Bush supported it. As President, John Kerry will make it a priority to make the DREAM Act the law of the land.

Offer a Fair Deal for Farmworkers. John Kerry supports the AgJobs bill, which is sponsored by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) and has 62 Senate cosponsors. This bill will secure the rights and futures for hard-working, honorable agricultural workers and will secure a legal labor force for America’s farmers. Once again, this bill would be law today but for George Bush’s failure to support it. As President, John Kerry will make this law a reality.

Offer Immigration Reform Bill Within 100 Days



In his first hundred days, John Kerry will also offer a comprehensive immigration reform bill with four basic components. And Kerry will work tirelessly until reform has become law.

Earned Legalization. Under John Kerry’s approach, undocumented workers who have lived and worked here for 5 years, who pay taxes, and who are successfully screened for security purposes will have a path to citizenship. Kerry will also expand opportunities to learn English and obtain civic education classes to help immigrants assume all of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Reuniting Families. Kerry will eliminate the massive administrative backlog and delay that has left many families unnecessarily divided for a decade or more. Our Nation’s immigration system must be able to more quickly reunite husbands with wives, parents with children. Legal permanent residents seeking to reunify with spouses and children must be provided a fair and efficient process to do so.

Visa Program with Worker Protections. Kerry will establish a secure channel for a limited number of temporary workers to come into the United States. To protect all working people in the United States, Kerry will ensure that these temporary workers have the protections of U.S. employment and labor laws, including fair wage protections. These protections must be rigorously enforced.

Stronger Border Security. As an integral part of his reform, John Kerry will reach an accord with neighboring countries to improve security along our borders and stop illegal smuggling. He will improve our nation’s security databases and watchlists and better control the borders to ensure that people who intend to harm us cannot cross our borders.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0629c.html

[Cleita]

81. Fabulous if he can do it.

I used to get really annoyed with the Bush brothers attempts at speaking Spanish. Even though the accents were better than the average English speaking person's attempt, I always thought it was because they were raised by Hispanic nannies. We know that the syntax, grammer and knowledge of what George Bush is saying is no better than his English. I suppose Jeb knows more because of Columba.

I do hope that Kerry will do this.

[Fescue4u]

61. Of course

Corporations now prey on the illegal immigrants with poor wages.

If we could elimate illegal immigration, corporations would be forced to pay real wages, and those jobs would be filled by citizens and legal immigrants.

[Dookus]

68. Why not eliminate the corporations

that do this? Why punish the workers?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. Why not? Repeal of corporate personhood is the most significant

reform we could make.

Why punish the workers?

I don't see any reason to punish workers who aren't breaking the law.

[kiahzero]

76. Why does eliminating illegal immigration have to punish the workers?

If you let them come to the country legally, you can in no way be punishing them - you'd be improving their situation, since they could no longer be used by predatory corporations for cheap labor.

Eliminating illegal immigration does not have to mean kicking all illegal immigrants out of the country.

[Dookus]

78. I agree with you

but alas, this poll was set up to discuss deportation as the only possible option.

[kiahzero]

80. Not really

The poll actually asked the question "Do we enforce or change the law completely, or only selectively?" The deportation is simply an implication of enforcing the law.

[Dookus]

82. Perhaps my english skills

are rusty. The poll says no such thing.

[kiahzero]

84. God forbid we use our brains to infer anything

When you take all that text in the first post together, that's the only interpretation that makes any sense to me. It's also supported by the poster's further commentary within the thread.

[K-W]

85. The poster never said anything resembling your interpretation.

I dont see how you could possibly read the poll to mean that.

[kiahzero]

87. Perhaps you should reread your exchange with him (n/t)

[K-W]

88. Ive read it. Maybe you should try backing up your reading

rather than insisting you are right.

Read the poll. There are two questions.

The first asks "Should illegal immigrants be deported? Or should we just not enforce our immigration laws?"

Other than the fact that it leaves out the option of changing the laws its pretty straightforward. Should we enforce or not enforce the immigration laws that call for deportation?

Then the actual poll question asks:
"deport them, or change the laws." or "once they get here they should be allowed to stay, in violation of our laws."

The only destinction between the two options is noted in the second question, that we not enforce the deportation laws.

I understand it is confusing, but the only real question he asked was whether or not we should enforce the deportation laws.

He barely mentioned changing the laws, except in one of the poll options as a tag on to deporting them. He certainly didnt ask anything like what you said: "Do we enforce or change the law completely, or only selectively?"

I want to know where on earth you got that interpretation.

[kiahzero]

89. Changing the laws is EXPLICITLY mentioned

What are you talking about, "the degree of changing the laws?"

Here's a point for you - I agree with the way the poll was constructed, because there are only two options. Either we continue the way we are going (have the laws on the books, but barely enforce them) or we change the way the government is acting (either change the laws or enforce them).

Perhaps the "change the laws" aspect of the "change the way the government is acting" option was not emphasized enough in the poll. But remember - we're talking about an insignificant poll ona website that was probably put together in less than 10 minutes. Expecting it to be phrased perfectly, so everyone knows exactly what the poster is trying to ask, is a bit much in my opinion.

[K-W]

90. He mentioned it, but not in the way that you say.

He mentioned changing it along with standing by deportation as one option. The other option was not enforcing deportation.

Thus you either believed that deportation was right, or that we should change the laws, but, and this was inferred, while it is the law, it should be enforced.

or

the second option was that the law shouldnt be enforced.

By degree I was referring your interpretation of his point: "Do we enforce or change the law completely, or only selectively?"

suggesting that the question was about the degree of change or enforcement. That wasnt his question, his question was clearly enforce or not enforce. It had nothing to do with complete or selective change or enforcement.

[K-W]

83. There were two questions in the poll, that wasnt one of them.

The poll asked A: Do you support deportation or changing the laws. or B: Do you oppose enforcing the deportation laws.

It didnt ask anything about complete or selective anything.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. You've put your finger on it.

Illegal immigration status is like wearing a sign pinned to your butt that says 'Exploit me'

[depakid]

69. Should we think in terms of black & white- legal & illegal

or should we think in color, with all of the complexities that have made immigration law the quandary of emotion and reason that it is?

Personally, I prefer color to black and white- and I prefer the nuances recognized by common law to the strict construction of Napoleonic codes. I prefer deeper thoughts to shallow emotionally charged ones. Obviously, I'm in the minority, but that in itself doesn't make me or my approach wrong.

For example- Have you ever thought: NAFTA allows the free flow (or exodus?) of capital between borders, while at the same time, our immigration laws prevent the free flow of labor. Have you ever thought about what that might mean? Once upon a time, there was something called the Braceros program that attempted to balance out the shortage of wartime & post wartime (read-prosperity & GI Bill America) farmworkers and such with the very real need for Mexicans to support their families. For various reasons, the program ended up discontinued on the books but was a de facto reality for many years to follow.

:Sigh: Immigration law and policy is very complicated and doesn't lend itself to easy explanations. I don't pretend to know even much more than a slice of it- but what I do know is that it's multi-disciplinary and involves so much more than I can surely post.

About all I can do is hope that anyone who has strong feelings about it- as I obviously do- might do a little reading and have a look at what strange bedfellows immigration laws bring into the discussion on both sides.

Before Republican Alan Simpson went on a Gingrich rampage in the 1990's, I guarantee that you'd find immigration policy the very best spot to study politics objectively- although I would say that if you decide to go there- hold onto your hat and be prepared to think in ways you may never have imagined you'd think before.

[MercutioATC]

91. Encouraging illegal laborers is just domestic outsourcing.

Why is it that some of the same people who disagree with farming jobs out to lower-paid workers in other countries have no problem with giving U.S. jobs to illegal (and lower-paid) workers here?

It's the same thing, and it hurts our economy.

[Moderator]

115. This is a dead horse...beaten enough for now

locking