View Story | 69 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
This bill is loaded, loaded with labor arbitraging guest worker Visas, including the most notorious H-1B! This is a corporate sponsored lobbyist written bill and any Progressive knows it. Pretty amazing some "person" is trying to promote this Corporate cheap labor lobby turd.
(and it has little to do with any pathway to citizenship, it's really targeting American professional workers first and foremost).
NoSlaves.com | The Economic Populist
by BobOak on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:54:51 PM PDT
much opposition to doing anything, the situation has become desperate. What do we do about the 12 million undocumented immigrants and their families? To do nothing is a terrible thing. And piecemeal legislation will be confusing. Seeing as there is so much resistance to comprehensive immigration reform, a compromise has to be reached. Of course business, agricultural and cultural conservatives interests have to be taken into consideration.
What is the solution of those that say do nothing? Just keep on squeezing the undocumented. Believe me, that will get ugly.
Feel free to lobby congress, telling them you're against the guest worker program, or anything else you don't like. But let's push for something that will be a start to fixing the situation.
Please feel free to offer your solution.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:15:19 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry I strongly suspect you of being a troll plus I've never heard of you. That's just so lame to promote a corporate written bill claiming it's "better than nothing". It has little to do with illegals and everything to do with labor arbitraging US workers...which is the primary target on this particular bill. Even the illegals advocates on here know this.
by BobOak on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:17:47 PM PDT
You say it has little to do with illegals.
If someone has lived in the U.S. for a sufficient period of time and has good character they (and their families) would qualify to become conditionally legal.
Under the Dream Act kids who came before thier 16th birthday and graduated from high school would become legalized.
Under AgJobs the farm workers (and their families) that are important for U.S. agriculture would become eligible to become documented.
Spouses of undocumented immigrants that entered without inspection would qualify to legalize.
And many more would benefit.
I don't like the parts of the bill that would make in harder to petition for family members. I don't like the large about of guest workers in the bill. I don't think we need it. But those were put on to appease the cultural conservatives and business.
You just criticize. What is your solution? Do nothing. If you have an alternative that has a chance of passing, I'm all ears.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:44:20 PM PDT
I read them all and duke1676 and I deeply analyzed some of them.
No, they don't have much to do with the illegals. We determined the "Z" visa means they will never get citizenship status actually. It's a trojan horse for the illegals side.
It's just a ploy to labor arbitrage Americans.
And as I've said, either you are incredibly naive or you are a corporate promoter because of the real illegals advocates on here they all know these bills are Corporate written cheap labor bills.
by BobOak on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:00:10 PM PDT
Z visa gave a path to citizenship eventually. Maybe duke1676 might enlighten us on that. He's a voice here I respect, especially on the immigration reform issue.
And why are you so against the Dream Act?
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:09:17 PM PDT
which is why people need to study these bills. It's a temporary visa which is permanent, yet the requirements to switch to a green card plus the "Skills based" merit system amount to never qualifying. It's a bogus bill designed to flood the US labor market with cheap foreign labor in order to further erode worker rights, wages and advance the great WTO, GATS mode 4 "trading of people as commodities" forced migration agenda.
We figured out that India and China would be #1 with the possibility of UK to be most favored. Since there is already a glut of PhDs in the US and STEM professionals are #1 targets for labor arbitrage, with both India and China demanding more offshore outsourcing and insourcing and calling all of this "trade".....this is a real, very valid labor issue...and few are seeing the big global labor arbitrage picture.
That is why you have economists being on the "no amnesty" side because behind this buzz word rallying cry is a whole lot of other agenda items to stop global labor arbitrage.
I've suggested to the "amnesty" advocates that people calm down, and from the grassroots/netroots hammer out our own bill for anything is better than what the US Chamber of Commerce is going to present....and my understanding of La Raza is that has become almost a corporate front group.
But, trying to claim "oh poor illegals" and "compassion" is bogus. there is another guy on here promoting advancing S. of the border nation's own economies so they don't leave and get exploited as a solution. I think that is extremely valid and why you'll see "no amnesty" Progressives attack NAFTA and CAFTA-DR especially for it's all tied together.
by BobOak on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:20:19 PM PDT
the Z visas and merit system were not included in this bill, but rather were added to it when it was used as the model for the Senate bill. I think Bob might be confusing the two ...but that said, STRIVE is FAR from good legislation.
I can't check the bill right now (I'm on dial-up) but if memory serves me well, one of the biggest problems with STRIVE was that it shifted the criminality of being "illegal" from "illegal presence" to "illegal entry". Meaning that simply being in the country without proper documentation would no longer disqualify one from applying to normalize their status.
BUT...if you "entered illegally" you could not apply. This in essence would allow those on visa overstays (nearly half of all undocumented) to apply for "amnesty". While those who crossed the southern border illegally, (ie. Mexicans and Central Americans) would not be eligible for status normalization.
Additionally STRIVE contained much of the punitive language of last years house bill HR4437.
Plus there was in this bill again a large expansion of guest worker programs with no substantive changes made to quotas and restrictions for legal immigration. ...Again, as in the other comprehensive bills, creating a shift from permanent legal immigration to temporary workers to be used at business's discretion with little or no protections.
It is the expansion of the guest worker programs, the favoring of high skilled workers and those with visa overstays, and the elimination of those who crossed the southern border improperly from "amnesty programs" that I found most troubling and certainly far too business friendly and worker unfriendly.
(I need to check Title V and VI of the bill when I get home to see the specifics of the path to citizenship for guest workers, and the rest of the provisions of the bill ...butI remember that it had many flaws that needed SERIOUS REVISION before it could ever be considered as meaningful legislation)
Migra Matters: progressive immigration reform
by Duke1676 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:42:19 PM PDT
when you have a chance. I think it would be fascinating, expecially since congress will be discussing the Strive Act Tomorrow.
And my understanding was that those who crossed without inspection would also qualify for a Z visa. And only if they had a deportation order or a bad criminal record would they be disqualified.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:08:09 PM PDT
Bill that Kennedy, Kyl and Bush put together.
STRIVE didn't have the Z Visas or the Merit point system ...they were introduced in the Senate Bill.
STRIVE was originally introduced in the House, but quickly shelved when the Whitehouse, Kennedy and Kyl started to but together the "Grand Compromise" bill that died last june.
STRIVE was the first attempt to incorperate the strict enforcement from last years HR4437, with a large guestworker program and a limited "amnesty" in hopes that it could hit the "sweet spot" that would garner enough Republican support. It had the benchmarks of "border security" before any normalization of status for the 12mil could occur, and a number of other concession to the right-wing and business interests that had been propossed both last year in the Senate and the House.
I think many here are confussing STRIVE with the failed Senate Bill from last spring ...they are very much the same in spirit...but had many differences....Z Visas and merit points being one of them.
by Duke1676 on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:26:32 PM PDT
and House versions. It's hard to make sense at all. and then come the amendments.
I hope the Strive Act that will be discussed in the House tomorrow has a path towards citizenship for those who entered with and without inspection. Otherwise, it leaves millions of people in limbo still.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:34:54 PM PDT
Of that legislation you are supporting.
Employment-Based Immigration: Increases employment-based immigrant visas from 140,000 to 290,000 per fiscal year. The 290,000 ceiling for employment-based immigrant visas is redistributed among the employment-based immigrant visa categories and certain modifications are made to current categories. Unused employment-based immigrant visas from previous fiscal years are recaptured and made available for employment-based immigrant visas for future fiscal years. Visas issued to spouses and children after October 1, 2004 under the employment-based category will no longer be counted against the cap. No more than 800,000 visas may be issued to employment-based spouses and children during any fiscal year. Per Country Limits: Makes slight increases to the per-country limits for family and employment based visas.
H-1B Visa Program: Increases the cap on H-1B visas to 115,000 (which can be increased in a subsequent year if the cap is reached during a given fiscal year, not to exceed 180,000) and exempts from this cap certain individuals who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math in the United States.
Increased Labor Law Enforcement: Adds 2,000 Department of Labor investigators dedicated to enforcing this title. Requires the Department of Labor to create regulations for processing complaints relating to violations of the H-2C program by an aggrieved worker. The Labor Secretary may impose administrative remedies and penalties upon finding a violation relating to H-2C employers or contractors.
I put th 'Increased Labor Law Enforcement' enforcement blurb in this post because it is just so much more laughable than the rest of this tripe. I have lost count of the number of times now that the DOL has refused to investigate charges of abuse within the eight existing guest worker programs.
The answer truly can only be to:
Yep, this'll 'fix' it.
By the way, about 50% of all H1B visas are used by high tech firms, and this 'bill' will increase the cap from 65,000 to 115,000 automatically. Do you have any idea how many new jobs were created in high technology last year?
by superscalar on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:53:35 PM PDT
undocumented into the system. The strive act aims to do that. It's got lots of flaws, but something has to be done besides enforcement only. If you have ideas about how to make the law better I'd like to hear them.
Doing nothing but enforcement is not a viable option.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:02:56 PM PDT
The main issure for me is bringing the undocumented into the system.
And not part of a larger goal -- this does not surprise me -- I just wonder why you would believe there is some critical mass of a constituency for your position?
If you have ideas about how to make the law better I'd like to hear them.
What 'law' is that you are talking about here, and 'better' -- better often means better for some but not necessarily better for all.
by superscalar on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:09:27 PM PDT
would be better, and their families lives as well. Maybe you could double that if you included families. And there are many here who believe in a "compasionate path to citizenship".
And I don't believe there is a critical mass of voters for my position. Therefore, compromise is needed and lobbying. The law wasn't passed because the Congress received 10 letters, phone call, emails against for every one in favor.
I'm hoping for the best, most compasionate law possible, with the fewest people hurt and the most people benefitted. There's going to be lots of bad stuff in the law, and some stuff that's bad for some and good for others. That's the nature of the political process.
There is hardly ever a law that is good for everyone. Let's all get behind making the law the best law posible.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:29:09 PM PDT
If one meets the requirements of the Dream Act on the day the bill is signed. In other words it does nothing for those who may fit the requirements of the bill a year from now.
by superscalar on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:53:55 PM PDT
it's not worthwhile?
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:14:26 PM PDT
Are bad legislation.
by superscalar on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:21:09 PM PDT
Compassion is an important issue in the immigration debate. For many of us compassion for people living and working and raising families here now is the most important issue.
For those of us who think this way, we are forced to compromise with the business interests (and business includes small business and family farms) since the anti-business people insist on sounding like the far right.
A bill that offers a compassionate path to citizenship for people that many of us care about is better than nothing.
The question is whether we can even do better with a bill that has the compassion that we want, with provisions that would make you happier.
It would be nice if you could respect our position without having a knee-jerk need to viciously attack any bill that offers compassion for immigrants.
by Sentido on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:54:36 PM PDT
there is absolutely nothing compassionate about the "Z" Visa frankly. The whole thing is a joke because citizenship will be unattainable and for US citizens it's also extremely unfair.
As I've said I've analyzed these bills with some of the real illegal advocates and while I come down hard on the "Americans 1st" US workers first and so on position, even from an amnesty position this bills sucks. They will have almost no social mobility and never obtain citizenship status in a nutshell.
So, where's the compassion in that, even if you are on the side of the illegals?
by BobOak on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:02:20 PM PDT
what is YOUR position on what should be done about the 12 million undocumented in the U.S.?
Are you sure about that "citizenship will be unattainable"?
My feeling is that most of those who take advantage of the "Z visa" will eventually become citizens.
I get the feeling YOU'DE prefer to do nothing. Am I wrong?
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:29:24 PM PDT
on almost every post in this story. Immigration policy is highly complex and is a major factor in labor economics. I'd say I'm against people like you or diaries like this which post misinformation, have little knowledge of immigration policy, the history, the implementation of it, the labor economics of it, and so forth who espouse "stuff" that doesn't get anywhere in terms of crafting sane domestic solutions.
by BobOak on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:12:05 PM PDT
good reasons. Which misinformation have I posted? If you accuse me I hope you can back your accusation up. If I make a mistake, I would like to have it pointed out. Then I won't make the same mistake in the future. I don't think I have little knowledge of immigration policy and history. If you think so, feel free to educate me.
If what I propose doesn't get anywhere in terms of crafting sane domestic solutions then I welcome knowing what your solution is to the "undocumented immigrant" issue, or "comprehensive immigration reform" issue.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:35:37 PM PDT
now you just reply with this absurd mentality that gets no where in discussing policy. It's really boring. and it's really old at this point.
by BobOak on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:37:37 PM PDT
but I asked you for what your comprehensive immigration solution is, and it seems you really don't have a solution. A do nothing policy is not what's best for America, in my opinion.
And for my benefit could you please list my "misinformation". You can disagree with my opinions, but if you say I'm spreading misinformation, I'd like to know where. And please back your opinions up with evidence and not just your "anti immigrant" opinions.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:45:08 PM PDT
with posters like you, it's a waste of time....and I already answered this repeatedly.
by BobOak on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:48:48 PM PDT
and I didn't ask you to debate me. Just tell me what specific disinformation I posted. I think it's fair for me to request that in light of the accusation.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:55:13 PM PDT
I'll have to use those words sometime. That's what we need for those who are here and deserve it.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:03:48 PM PDT
That's what we need for those who are here and deserve it.
Of those 'who are here and deserve it'. You advocate, because you support the STRIVE Act, on behalf of everybody who just happens to have been in the country illegally before June 1, 2006, or may be able to buy or create the counterfeit papers neccesary to make that case.
So, based upon your words and your support of the STRIVE Act, that person who came to this country illegally on April 29, 2006 is just as deserving in your eyes as that person who arrived on April 29, 1990, that person who may have come to this country illegally, but has paid taxes and filed taxes since 2004 is just as deserving as that person who came to this country illegally in 1990 and hasn't paid a cent in Federal Income Tax.
What's more, you take it on faith that they are all equally deserving because you neither ask, nor do you demand, any proof that they in fact all equally deserving.
by superscalar on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:24:27 PM PDT
I'm just looking for the best posible law. I'm not looking for a perfect law. And I don't think everyone is equally deserving. But I do believe we should be compasionate to those who deserve it.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:38:20 PM PDT
But let's push for something that will be a start to fixing the situation.
'Fix' nothing, but for those whose only interest (and many with a personal, professional, or other vested interest) is the legal status of those currently in this country illegally the DREAM Act and the STRIVE Act are presented as a 'fix' because they address (parts of) what is most important to that contituency which is, again, the legal status of those currently in this country illegally.
There is little interest for a 'fix' outside of this goal -- in other words, that represents the whole of the 'fix'. What we will get with this kind of 'fix' is the same thing that we got in 1986.
What do we do about the 12 million undocumented immigrants and their families?
What are you going to do about the next '12 million' that will come after you have made this '12 million' legal?
by superscalar on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:08:55 PM PDT
Amnesty? Second, I don't think it will be so easy for the next millions because the rules have changed and it will be much harder for new arrival to get jobs, etc.
by immigradvocate on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:13:00 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 69 comments