Daily Kos

A progressive plan for immigration reform

Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:05:00 AM PDT

(Rescued last night, but worthy of wider readership because it serves as an excellent framework to begin discussion of a complicated and often divisive issue. SusanG)

With the defeat of the Republican "sliver bullet wedge" of immigrant-bashing in last Tuesday's election, it appears that Markos' has had a sudden "road to Damascus" epiphany about discussing immigration issues here at Daily Kos. After three years of barely a peep about the topic on the front page, we have seen a plethora of diaries in support of comprehensive immigration reform in the last few days. (But that's not the point of this dairy ...I'll discuss that at length at a later date.)

This sudden conversion has had seismic effects on the site as a whole. Immigration diaries which traditionally garnered little attention, or wallowed in flame wars, are now the hot topic du jour.

With that in mind, I figured it might be a good time post up a diary that sums up everything I've learned in my past three years here posting on immigration issues.

Parts of this have been posted before in various other forms  .. But what follows is the completed version of a:  A progressive plan for immigration reform

GETTING TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM: COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND WORKING AMERICANS

Introduction

After years of controversy and partisan infighting, we appear today no closer to any meaningful new national immigration policy than we were over six years ago when President Bush first claimed he would make it a priority upon taking office. Much of the blame for this situation clearly rests on the shoulders of the President and his party, who during six years of essentially unopposed control of government, failed to reach any acceptable compromise. But, there have also been divisions within the Democratic Party that have helped stall the effort.

While stating a uniform policy of supporting "comprehensive reform", exactly what constitutes such reform can differ greatly within the Democratic Party.

Currently undocumented immigrants flood over the borders daily risking their lives, and sometimes losing them, in order to find work and security in the United States. Perhaps upwards to a 500,000 undocumented people each year find a way, whether it be by overstaying a visa, or crossing hundreds of miles deadly desert, to enter this country in hopes of making a better life.

Americans of all political stripes are concerned about this situation and there is great division on exactly how to solve the problem. Some have advocated a tightening of security and closing of the porous border as a solution. Others have promoted a method to regulate and legitimize the flow of the undocumented.

But there is one thing missing in both of these strategies. Neither contains any analysis of why this problem exists, and more importantly, why at this time in our history this influx of new immigrants is causing such great concern for the American people. Neither group seems concerned with root causes.

The number of immigrants has not really changed

Throughout our history we have encountered many waves of immigration. In fact, most of us can trace our roots back to foreign shores one way or another. The number of new immigrants who come today, both entering through proper channels and the undocumented, is no greater as a percentage of population than at many other times during our history. From the late-nineteenth century, through the first thirty years of the last, immigrants represented about 14.6% of the total population (1) ; today that number is 12% (2). Certainly our earlier immigrants were not rich, and most had limited education, but they like our current crop of immigrants, had the drive and determination to seek out a better life. This influx of new vitality and ambition has been a cornerstone on which the nation was build.

So why today do we find ourselves in the middle of what some would term a crisis?

What is different today then during past immigration waves?

Historically there have always been a small minority of protectionists who've opposed immigration for xenophobic or racists reason, but generally we as a people have accepted new immigrants with open arms and absorbed them into society. Yet, today we find this harder and harder to do. Many believe the new immigrants are putting undo pressures on our economy, creating stresses on a tight job market, and stretching already taxed social services and education systems.

Why today do we find it so hard to absorb these new immigrants? Why at a time in our history, when we have never been richer as a nation and more educated as a population, do we find these new immigrants putting such great stresses on our society? Perhaps we need to look at some of the changes that have taken place over the last twenty-five or so years to find the answer.



THE SYSTEMATIC ASSAULT ON WORKING AND MIDDLE-CLASS AMERICANS

Over the past twenty five years it appears that there's been a systematic assault upon the working and middle classes of this nation which now leaves many vulnerable and in a position where they must compete for an ever decreasing pool of resources. At one time, a family could live comfortably on the income of one earner, but today it takes two just to make ends meet. A guaranteed pension for retirement is no longer the norm. A union card no longer guarantees a lifetime of job security. Health insurance costs have become an overwhelming concern for both workers and employers and forty five million Americans in fact go without any. A job with one of the nation's largest companies no longer means yearly raises and increased benefits; in fact it doesn't even guarantee job security. An advanced degree no longer means a career in your chosen field. Today working and middle class Americans can expect plant closings and layoffs, pay cuts and increased hours, loss of benefits and outsourcing. They can expect economists to talk about "jobless recoveries" and increased productivity. It is no wonder that many working-class Americans are feeling the added stresses of our new modern global economy. It is also no wonder that they are ready to lash out against those they feel they must now compete against.

Our nation is sick, and current "immigration crisis" is not the cause of this national illness, but just another symptom of it.



Who is responsible for this situation?

The answer is simple ... the economic and social policies of those who claim to be Conservatives that favor an elite class of the economically privileged over the vast majority of Americans.

Of course, many working class Americans might scoff at this idea. Certainly a philosophy of smaller government, personal responsibility and free market economics sounds appealing to many, and on face value alone is quite in line with the principles on which our nation was founded. But in practice, what these so called Conservatives have done with this philosophy has been the antithesis of what the founders had in mind. These Conservatives have used this philosophy to consolidate economic and political power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. They have turned the ideals of fair play and Christian charity upside down and transformed them into grotesque parodies.

They have taken two hundred years of struggle to raise the standard of living for the average American and thrown it to the winds, all in the name of "fiscal responsibility" and "smaller government." All along being neither fiscally responsible nor providing smaller government.



How did they do this?

How did these self-proclaimed Conservatives wage this war on the working and middle class? It started in the eighties with two policies; deregulation and union busting. Then continued with more failed and flawed policies right up until our present day in alliance with business interests and the economic elite who benefit most from this agenda.

Union Busting

Starting with the firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981, Conservatives have set forth an agenda through legislation and judicial decisions to slowly disassemble the American labor movement. At the time, many Americans supported the idea, feeling that unions had become too powerful, corrupt and greedy, but the results of this policy have had devastating effects on American workers. Conservatives advocating "right to work" legislation under the guise that it allowed workers free choice whether or not to join a union, have in effect allowed employers to guarantee open shops and eventually drive the unions out of many sectors of the US economy. Ever since the eighties the number of union households has been steadily declining from a high of 20.1 % in 1983 to 12.5% in 2005 (3). Today Wal Mart, the nations largest employer, continually fights against the unionization of it's employees using laws and policies put in place by conservative legislators.

At the beckoning of corporate interests, Conservatives have managed to take what was once the bulwark of working class America, the very entity that allowed millions of American workers to move themselves or their children into the middle class, and rendered it powerless.

Deregulation

Under the guise of increased competition and lower prices through free market forces, Conservatives began a campaign of deregulation. They would no longer allow the government to regulate business, but rather leave it up to the free market. Again, on paper this practice looked reasonable, but under their control we have ended up with the reverse.

Instead of government controlling business, we now have business controlling government.

We have allowed business combinations that rival any of those of the Robber Barons of the late nineteenth century. We have seen regulated monopolies in the energy, telecom, airline and other industries destroyed, only to recombine into unregulated monsters like Enron. We have seen the merger of mega oil companies that are larger than those of Rockefeller's Standard Oil, who make profits that would make King Midis blush, while the average American can't afford to fill up his gas tank.

Globalization and outsourcing

The next logical step after domestic deregulation for Conservatives was globalization and the taking of their idea of the free market economy, without any government regulation, to a global scale. Conservatives passed legislation and trade agreements that allowed huge multinational companies to operate with impunity throughout the world. Believing that free markets, free trade, and the unrestricted flow of capital would produce the greatest social, political and economic good, Conservative policies have left our nation with record trade imbalances (4) and a national debt of over 8 trillion dollars (5) , much of it underwritten by possible economically hostile nations like China (6,7). Hundreds of free trade agreements have been signed that have in many cases had devastating effects not only for American workers, but decimated industries in foreign countries. In Mexico in particular, free trade agreements have destroyed large sections of the agricultural sector (8), leading to increased immigration to the US. They have allowed companies like Halliburton to set up shadow entities on foreign soil to avoid paying taxes.

They've allowed American businesses to sell American jobs to the lowest bidder on the global market all in the name of free market economics.

Rewriting the tax codes and starving the beast

Conservatives often say that the only thing wrong with government is government, and promise to lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and be fiscally responsible. Yet, after years of Conservative leadership we have the largest government in US history, a record federal deficit and a record national debt of more than 8 trillion dollars. The only part of their philosophy they seem to be able to stick too is tax cuts.

They have systematically worked over the last twenty-five years to shift the tax burden from both big business and the top 1% of the nation's wealthiest people and place it on the middle and working class.

They have consistently rewarded corporations and the rich with larger and larger tax breaks. Through cuts in funding to education, health and human services and many other state and local programs they have managed to shift the tax burden down to the local level so that average Americans now pay more in real estate, state and local, use and sales taxes than ever before. They have not given the American people "back their money" as they claim, but rather forced them to just pay more to other government agencies.

The other aspect of the Conservative tax cutting agenda has been to use cuts as a means to, as they term it; "starve the beast". It's been conservative policy to try to assure that social programs for education, childcare, healthcare and the poor are "starved to death" due to the lack of available federal funds.

Their philosophy has resulted in huge benefits for the rich while programs that working and middle class Americans rely on are cut. The best example of this is public education, where Conservatives have consistently cut funding while placing ever more increasing demands upon the system.

Healthcare

Another big concern for average Americans is healthcare and its skyrocketing costs. Conservative deregulation and free market philosophies have influenced this also. While fighting vehemently against any form of a national healthcare program, they have through legislation and governmental agencies, allowed large pharmaceutical manufactures and healthcare conglomerates to set the agenda.

National health policy has been written by insurance companies and other corporate interests rather than physicians and medical professionals. A policy that has left 45 million Americans without basic health insurance and millions more grossly under-insured and paying a large percentage of medical costs out of pocket

.



But What Does All This Have To Do With Immigration?

These Conservative policies that favor the economic elite have had devastating effects on the working and middle classes, yet in order to remain in power Conservatives have tried to shift the blame. Every problem that is claimed to be a result of the "immigration crisis" can be seen to have its roots in Conservative economic and social policies.

Conservatives have been trying to convince the American people that it is the immigrants who put all the stresses on education, social services and healthcare institutions and that they take jobs from American workers and drive down wages. But it must be understood that while immigrants do highlight the problems of working class Americans, they haven't caused them.

All these problems can be seen as direct results of twenty-five years of Conservative policy. This is obvious when you look at the ROOT CAUSES. The Republican controlled Congress for the last ten years has exacerbated the situation by rubber-stamping every Conservative policy that has come down the pike. With each passing year they have taken more and more from working Americans and given it to their corrupt corporate masters. Now there is nothing left, and the American working man and woman knows it. They just need to stop buying into the Conservatives "blame game" and look at the ROOT CAUSES of their problems.



What can we do?

We, as a nation need to stop letting those who don't have our best interests at heart to control the agenda. We must not allow them to divide us along lines of class, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender. We must not allow them to misdirect us or mislead us with appeals to our patriotism or national pride. We must not let them blame the symptoms rather than the disease.

The "immigration crisis" is just another symptom of a far greater disease ... the disease of a Conservative agenda that favors the rich and big business over average Americans. Immigrants certainly put added stresses on society and highlight the problems of the now decimated social programs, education and health care systems, but they did not cause the national illness.



How do we "fix" immigration?

Fixing our broken immigration system will not be easy, and it will be a long hard process. Again just as in the case of working Americans, one key must be to look for the ROOT CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM. We must look at the reasons why millions of people every year risk their lives to come here? What is it about their countries of origin that make them so desperate to leave? Particularly in the case of Mexico, it's a nation that has the 13th largest economy in the world, ahead of 167 other nations. They also are the second largest recipients of direct investment by US companies in the hemisphere. On top of this Mexico has vast amounts of untapped natural resources and oil reserves that rival those of any Middle Eastern power. So why do their people live in poverty? Why must they come here simply to survive? Could it be precisely because they are the second largest recipients of direct investment by US big business? Could it be because Conservative trade and economic policies have been crafted to favor the business elite and the rich of Mexico, just as they favor them here? Could it be because Conservative policies help perpetuate a system that leaves 55% of the countries wealth in the hands of 20% of its people? These are all things that need to be addressed when looking at the "immigration crisis".

WHAT SHOULD PROGRESSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM LOOK LIKE ?

Despite what many claim, support for some sort of comprehensive immigration reform is not tantamount to calling for "open borders" , unrestricted immigration" or as Lou Dobbs like to claim, "importing half the population of Mexico into the US." While some from the left, and both the Libertarian and Free Trade right, favor open borders and the total unrestricted flow of people, goods and services between nations, most progressives don't. They see our current "immigration problem" as a failure of our system to live up to its historical duty to allow for the reasonable flow of people from all over the world to come to this nation to make a better life, add vitality and diversity to our national mosaic, and join in the great American democratic experiment. The key phrase being: "reasonable flow".

Two facts must be taken as givens in any discussion of immigration reform if we are to make any real progress towards meaningful reform:

  • 1. We need immigration. Currently there are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the US of which 7.5 million are in the workforce, with approximately half a million more joining them each year. Additionally, we allow for roughly a million "legal" immigrants to enter each year. 98% of all undocumented immigrants eligible to work (excluding children and stay-at-home mothers of young children), do so, and the US unemployment rate floats around 5% or roughly 7 million people. We need these workers, it's just a fact
  • 2. Undocumented immigrants do keep wages artificially low in a few select industries that rely on them for the bulk of their workforce. Employers in these sectors, able to pay immigrant workers less, cannot be expected to do anything but take advantage of the situation. The solution to this problem is not to eliminate the immigrant workforce in order to force wages up due to a lack of needed workers. The solution is to put these workers on a path to legalization in order that employers can no longer exploit them. Numerous studies show that once an immigrant attains legal status his wages and benefits go up and his employer begins adhere to federal and state workplace regulations. It's a self policing system.



With these two basic premises accepted, it becomes clear what the goal of progressive immigration reform should be: Allow for a reasonable flow of new immigrants and figure out a way to allow them to enter the country legally.



What is a reasonable flow of immigration?

How do we determine what the "reasonable" amount of immigrants to allow in each year should be?

The number of immigrants admitted each year for employment purposes should be determined by a floating scale that takes into account the number of available jobs, the current unemployment rate, the number of green cards issued the previously year measured against the number applied for. In other words use simple supply and demand. As long as there is a demand for increased immigration, there must be a legal way meet that demand. At the present time we have no legal means to supply the workers needed, hence they are forced to enter the country illegally and live in the shadows. Obviously we must first raise the quotas to more accurately reflect the realities on the ground.

We must also eliminate the per country cap that favors smaller nations with fewer immigrant applicants over those countries that have long traditional ties to the US. We must raise the 5000 maximum cap on unskilled worker green cards issued each year to reflect the true needs of the national labor pool. We need to ease restrictions on family reunification and rework the diversity "lottery" and refugee policies to better serve the needs of those who face a clear and present danger in their countries of origin.

One possible solution

Perhaps there is a better way to formulate such important and complicated policy. Perhaps we should institute some sort of independent "immigration policy board" that is free of elected officials, made up of experts in immigration, economists, labor and immigrant advocates, that could be charged with the responsibility of formulating certain aspects of immigration policy.

At present it's basically a decision made by politicians.

As we saw during the debates over Comprehensive Immigration Reform, legislators seem to pull numbers out of thin air, check with "business" leaders, take some foreign policy considerations, think about sound bites, spin and firing up the base, then put it all in a big bowl and mix it up and serve it to the American people as policy.

This is politics as usual, but it doesn't have to be.

What if there could be something set up independent of elected government, something similar to the way the Federal Reserve is set up, and sets interest rates? An independent "immigration policy board", charged with setting the immigration levels and working out policy. They could be the ones to determine how many of each visa class to issue each year or how many green cards etc. rather than our elected officials.

This seems to be a logical alternative to the current system. We do not allow elected officials to set the Fed interest rates because they lack the necessary expertise to do so,  and we know they'd set them at 0% in election years, and 30% in off years.

The same should be true with immigration policy. Between pressure from big business, the natural tendency for politicians to pander for votes, and other political calculations, perhaps elected officials are not the best choice for formulating the nuts and bolts of immigration policy.

This policy board's mission would be to gather information, listen to testimony, call in experts, listen to lobbyists, immigrants advocates, etc., then make their recommendations for the following years "quotas". Each year they would then adjust them according to economic conditions, world events, the previous year's successes and/or failures, unemployment rates, etc.

This way the whole affair is taken out of the hands of both the politicians and the business interests that control them.

The AFL-CIO advocates a similar process in theory. They instead have called for all caps on the number of employment-based visas issued each year to be set by the U.S. Department of Labor based on economic indicators that establish the needs of particular industries, not by political compromise.

Once we have determined what reasonable levels of immigration are, then and only then can we begin to look at border security. Once we remove millions of would-be "illegal" immigrants from the mix by providing them a legal path to immigration, we can formulate an effective border security plan. To do the reverse, and try to secure the border before reforming the immigration system is like trying to fix a leaky pipe without turning off the water. We need to channel our immigration through legal points of entry, before we can plug the holes in the border.



ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF MIGRATION

We need to take a complete and comprehensive approach to immigration reform, and this includes something none of the present legislation accounts for. We need to look at the reasons why millions of people each year are compelled to risk their lives to enter this country illegally. This includes an examination of the effects of US foreign policy and trade policies that have fostered poverty and political upheaval throughout much of the third world.

Why is it that Mexico, a country with the thirteenth largest economy in the world, has a population that lives in abject poverty? How have we allowed US corn exports to decimate local Mexican economies? How come NAFTA and WTO trade restrictions have been allowed to cause of the collapse of the coffee industry throughout much of Central America?

The US has power to do both great good and great harm throughout the third world with its economic and foreign policy decisions and we must start to look at the long term ramifications of these policies. Rather than allowing US business interests to dictate trade and economic policy, we need to view these policies in light of their long term effects on both foreign economies and our own.

Let's look at what globalization has done to both the US and Mexican economies. At first under NAFTA US companies outsourced American jobs to Mexico where they could find cheaper labor and less government restriction. Over time these jobs have now been outsourced from Mexico to Asia, where even cheaper labor and less government interference can be found. As long as US economic and trade policy is based solely upon the interests of big business, this race to the bottom will continue. Until we begin to address the true causes for the mass migration of people who live in abject poverty in countries that have more than enough resources to provide a reasonable lifestyle for its entire population, we will never get a handle on the "immigration problem"



RAISING STANDARDS FOR ALL U.S. WORKERS

Many Democrats, and particularly Progressives, look at increasing the penalties for hiring undocumented workers as a panacea for solving the "immigration crisis".  This of course stems from a natural distrust of Corporate America by working people ....and rightfully so. Many corporations benefit greatly from our current ineffective immigration system. It allows for abuses and exploitation of workers both immigrant and native–born.

But once again we need to look at ROOT CAUSATION when addressing worker abuse.

The problem with the exploitation of workers is at its core not a problem of lack of enforcement of immigration laws in the workplace, but rather the lack of enforcement of LABOR laws in the workplace. Unfair labor practices, failures to adhere to wage and hour regulations, unsafe working conditions, lack of employee protections, harassment or obstruction of efforts to organize ...these are not immigration problems, but rather labor problems.

In order to raise the standards for all workers, both US-born and immigrant, the labor and employment laws of this country need to be more strictly enforced.

Currently "workplace enforcement" revolves around the government rooting out unauthorized workers and deporting them. The businesses rarely receive any punishments and when they do they quickly pass those costs on to consumers through higher prices as part of the cost of doing business. But the terrible working conditions that have relegated those jobs to ones that only undocumented immigrants will accept remain the same.

This paradigm needs to shift. The government needs to shift its focus from attacking the symptom of unfair labor practices, to attacking those practices themselves.

Instead of swat teams of ICE agents storming factories and meatpacking plants looking for undocumented immigrants, we need armies of inspectors from the Department of Labor, OSHA, and other agencies, looking for labor violations and evidence unfair labor practices.  This is how you raise the standards for all US workers.

Reforming immigration policy to benefit all workers

Allowing for reasonable rates of immigration and the legalization of all current undocumented immigrants would in fact start a process by which all US workers could begin to reverse the thirty-year decline in working class real wages and benefits. The inclusion of 7.5 million newly legal workers to the workforce would go a long way to stem this tide. This is why the immigrant's rights movements has the support of the largest unions in the country. The Services Workers, Laborers International and the AFL-CIO have all backed comprehensive immigration reform and the legalization of workers already living in the country. They realize that if they could unionize the current immigrants already in the country and add ½ million or so new members each year from new immigrants, they could possibly regain much of the power they have been lacking for the past thirty years.

At the polls, these new working class Americans would have a voice in formulating policies more favorable to working families. Things like universal health care, education, a living wage and an equitable tax code would move to the forefront. This is one reason Bush and his big business buddies are so enthralled with his "guest worker" program. It supplies businesses with workers, while keeping them from unionizing and more importantly eventually voting. The last thing the economic elite want is a growing working class voting block to contend with. They will concede on those already here, but as for future immigrants, they want them to enter as temporary workers, to be shipped back home before they can gain political clout. Contrary to what the right-wing would have Americans believe, immigrants are not the enemy of working men and women, but rather natural allies in the struggle for a better life.



CONCLUSION

While this is far from a complete analysis, or comprehensive plan to address all the aspect of this complex issue, it does represent a starting point for understanding what a plan for progressive immigration reform entails.

  • *Formulate a reasonable, humane, fair and practical method for determining the levels of immigration going forward. Perhaps by an independent policy board free from the pressures of political expediency and business interests.
  • *Providing a path to legalization for all current undocumented immigrants living and working in the US.
  • *Secure the border by first ensuring that the vast majority of immigrants are able to legally enter the country through a legal port of entry. Once the massive flow of immigration through illegal channels is curtailed, then work to physically secure the remainder of the border. After that, interior and workplace enforcement could begin to ensure compliance.
  • *Address the root causes of immigration, and change US policy so that it doesn't foster and produce conditions that force millions of people each year to leave their countries of origin in order to simply survive. Tie all future trade, military, and foreign aid agreements to not only worker protections both here and abroad, but also to their ability to foster economic progress for the working class and poor in sender nations.
  • *Opposition to a "guest worker" program on the grounds that it provides no benefit to the American people or the immigrants themselves. It only provides big business with a disposable work force that holds down real wages and prevents immigrants from becoming a viable force in the workplace or full fledge members of society.
  • *Foster an immigration policy that strengthens the middle and working class through unionization and participation in the electoral process.
  • *Strict enforcement of all labor and employment laws
  • *Modernize and streamline the immigration process and eliminate the backlogs for those already in the queue
  • *Recognize that immigration is a vital part of maintaining a healthy and vibrant America. It is what has set this nation apart from all others since its inspection. To close our borders to new immigrants is to cut off the lifeblood that has always made this nation grow and prosper.

This, I believe, is a reasonable starting point to proceed from.





FOOTNOTES

1 "From 1850 to 1930, the foreign-born population of the United States increased from 2.2 million to 14.2 million, reflecting large-scale immigration from Europe during most of this period.1 As a percentage of total population, the foreign-born population rose from 9.7 percent in 1850 and fluctuated in the 13 percent to 15 percent range from 1860 to 1920 before dropping to 11.6 percent in 1930. The highest percentages foreign born were 14.4 percent in 1870, 14.8 percent in 1890 and 14.7 percent in 1910."
US Census Bureau; "Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-1990"; http://www.census.gov/...

2 "The Census Bureau estimated that the number of foreign-born people living in the United States topped 33 million and accounted for nearly 12 percent of the population in 2003--its highest share since 1930.... The foreign-born population, as defined by the Census Bureau, refers to all residents of the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth, regardless of their current legal or citizenship status."
Congressional Budget Office; "A Description of the Immigrant Population", November 2004; http://www.cbo.gov/...

3 "In 2005, 12.5 percent of wage and salary workers were union members, un-
changed from 2004, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. The union membership rate has declined from a high of 20.1
percent in 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available."
US Dept of Labor News, January 20, 2006; http://www.bls.gov/...

4 "The U.S. Department of Commerce today reported that the international deficit in goods and services trade reached a record level of $726 billion in 2005, an 18% increase over 2004. The U.S. merchandise deficit alone, which excludes services, was $782 billion, also an 18% increase."
Economic Policy Institute, February 10, 2006, "Rapid growth in oil prices, Chinese imports pump up trade deficit to new record" http://www.epinet.org/...

5 National debt as of June 21,2006: $8,309,177,355,316.66
National Debt Clock; http://www.brillig.com/...

6 "The growth of the trade deficit with China, which reached $202 billion in 2005, was responsible for the entire increase in the United States’ non-oil trade deficit. The trade deficit in manufactured products (net of refined petroleum) increased $46 billion, to $655 billion (an 8% increase)."
Economic Policy Institute, February 10, 2006, "Rapid growth in oil prices, Chinese imports pump up trade deficit to new record"; http://www.epinet.org/...

7 Major foreign holders of US treasury securities as of April 2006; Japan – $639.2 B, China -$323.3 B, UK-$166.8 B
US Dept. of Treasury/ Federal Reserve; http://www.treas.gov/...

8 "Mexican farmers say hefty agricultural subsidies in the United States give American white corn and beans an unfair advantage over the Mexican market, which depends in large part on small-scale and mostly subsistence farmers... Mexico's agriculture minister pleaded with Canada and the United States this month to reconsider the removal of the corn and bean tariffs, but U.S. Undersecretary for Agriculture J.B. Penn flatly rejected the appeal."
ABC News, "Mexico Hopeful Takes Hard Line Vs. NAFTA", June 21, 2006; http://abcnews.go.com/...

Poll

What is your opinion of this proposal?

26%561 votes
19%404 votes
7%163 votes
14%310 votes
6%135 votes
5%119 votes
1%33 votes
6%142 votes
8%183 votes
2%52 votes

| 2102 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: immigration, Rescued, Front Paged (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 473 comments

    •  It is (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      TexDem, Duke1676

      And it may be very good. It's clearly thoughtful. (So much to read... So little time.)

      Isn't there some way you could get it into more manageable chunks, even if it required a series of diaries? Diary series can be very good.

      •  hard to discuss (5+ / 0-)

        a big topic like this in 1500 words or less.

        I've put up parts of this in smaller chunks in the past ..but people then get hung up on minutia and lack the broader context.

        so much to read...so little time ...that's what bookmarks are for. Check it out when you've got time.

        •  A different idea (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Demi Moaned

          might be to create shorter summaries of each section with links to the more detailed expositions in other places (perhaps separate diaries, or entries in a personal blog).

          Much of what you are saying is (almost) exactly what I have been trying to say for some time, although obviously, you have done much more work on this issue.  Bu the core point of your argument and mine is to evaluate and address the root causes of the problem.  Indeed, that is key to most, if not all, problems.  There are parallels in arguments over terrorism, drugs, crime and homelessness.  Trying to police symptoms while ignoring causes never solves problems, and often exacerbates them.  Bravo! Fine diary.

          -9.88,-7.59 Just because empire is an ugly word doesn't mean you're not living in one.

          by real democracy on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:09:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I've come in too late to recommend, but I can (11+ / 0-)

          comment.  Yes, it is long; but it needs to be presented in the big picture.   I am pro-labor, pro what the union stands for, pro-American worker, and anti-NAFTA, anti free trade and anti Clintons because they enabled what the corporations and the conservatives wanted on trade, the race to the bottom. Given all of that, I agree (mostly) with everything you wrote.  However, if this is too long for Kossacks, it is too long for politicians.  They'll serve the corporatists (and themselves) and screw the immigrants, US, and any other country that has something it wants. Wish I had been here to recommend this.

          ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

          by dkmich on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:30:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  *Opposition to a "guest worker" program on the gr (9+ / 0-)

            *Opposition to a "guest worker" program on the grounds that it provides no benefit to the American people or the immigrants themselves. It only provides big business with a disposable work force that holds down real wages and prevents immigrants from becoming a viable force in the workplace or full fledge members of society.

            YES YES YES and stop the HB1 Visas

            •  guest workers take jobs for less $ (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              BobOak, Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter

              The irish guest workers and many european workers who take jobs away from inner city teens etc

            •  ABSOLUTELY (9+ / 0-)

              We really need to get the guest worker idea "off the table".  What a horrible compromise the Dems are looking at with that one...do we really want to bring back indentured servitude?

              We need to eliminate that talking point right now.

            •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

              Yes, big business uses and abuses them, but illegals work for: the guy who needs help fixing his roof and so he drives down to the park to hire a helper. This is repeated thousands of times daily all over the country.

              Therefore illegals are providing a work force for average Americans. I hired them in New Mexico when I was a landscaper. Why? Because no white guy will dig holes for $10 cash an hour in Santa Fe. This sentence bears repeating!

              The fact that no white guy in Santa Fe will do landscaping work for $10 cash an hour is in itself a remarkable factoid about the United States' economy.

              The Mexican guys I hired were good for six hours of hard labor, the sober ones, that is, and not the stoned kids out for a lark in El Norte.

              Many of my workers sent money to their families back home, and of course they shopped at Walmart and Albertsons.

              I support a guest worker program of some kind, partly to get the rabid right off their backs. In the southwest mucho resentment is forming from the usual reactionary groups. A moderately enforced guest worker program will innoculate the US against more punitive measures later.

              I'll stop here for now.

              can we handle the power of change?

              by bob zimway on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:26:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Under the table... (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                BobOak

                No taxes, no social security.  Stone out or drunk?  Maybe you need a better hiring process.  People/kids we hire are neither.

                ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

                by dkmich on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:19:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  $10 per hour for landscaper (0+ / 0-)

                I own a Tree Service and Landscaping company here in CA, I have no problem hiring groundsmen for $10 per hour. The cost of living, I don't think is any higher in Santa Fe, then here in Northern California. Resorting to the hiring of illegals does nothing for anybody. My question to you is did you pay them cash? Do you have a I-9 on them? Did you pay taxes and with hold there taxes?

                If employees are that hard for you to come by, file for an H-2 visa for them, get them legalized and use the system for what it was intended for. The guest worker program is already in place, people just need to start using it.

                •  Do you use the H2B visa? (0+ / 0-)

                  It's said to be quite cumbersome...

                  Man. Some "progressives" make Archie Bunker look like Tim Wise.

                  by JayGR on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 08:24:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have in the past (0+ / 0-)

                    all though it was in Texas in '96. Filled out 1 form, sent 1 copy to local labor department, sent the other to INS. Had an answer/reply within 45 days back then, had a visa certificate inside of 6 months. I was able to renew it for the next 4 years, until my employee and his wife moved up north. Haven't needed one since.

                    It only takes a little effort in filling out the form, planning ahead on the business owners behalf, and presto, employees.

                    Maybe I was lucky enough to obtain one, but all in all it wasn't very difficult to obtain by following instructions.

            •  a big If from Duke (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              BobOak

              ...once the massive flow of immigration through illegal channels is curtailed, then work to physically secure the remainder of the border.

              See, the horse is out of barn; a two thousand mile border through the desert is impossible to defend; therefore, any measures that are devised must come from inside the US. That is why I very reluctantly
              advocate an identity card for employees.

              Please don't begin screaming yet.

              Okay, that card contains a name and a signature under the statement that this employee is legally present in the US.

              This then, puts pressure on the employer. It does not criminalize the employee. If the employer has undocumented workers then he is fined and the worker is dismissed, and not jailed. And not deported. That's right, he's fired but left alone.

              With no job he won't last long. He'll subsist on the margins with casual labor (no crime there), then eventually go back the same way he came in.

              This is I feel a humane and realistic treatment of illegals. It would require the employer who is living off the backs of these workers to show accountability.

              can we handle the power of change?

              by bob zimway on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:12:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  H1B? (0+ / 0-)

              Why would you stop that?

              Man. Some "progressives" make Archie Bunker look like Tim Wise.

              by JayGR on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 08:22:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Front paged, no less. (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Duke1676, Dianna, Demi Moaned

          It deserved it, no doubt.  

          ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

          by dkmich on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:16:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You missed the most important point (6+ / 0-)

      Why do we allow immigration?  To be nice to non-Americans?  Or to improve American for Americans?

      It certainly needs to be the second reason - to improve America for Americans.

      Once you see that the requirements for an intelligent immigration policy become reasonably obvious.

      We want people who are net contributors - who produce more wealth than they consume.

      That means doctors, scientists, engineers, etc.

      It also means agricultural workers and janitors.

      IT MEANS WORKERS

      The idea that immigrants drive down wages is nonsense.  Immigrants who work create wealth that becomes available to all Americans.  America's current success is due to immigrants - imagine American without European immigration!

      What we do have to do, however, is be strict about people who do not contribute or who cost more than they contribute.

      Some examples:

      • Non-Americans who commit even minor crimes should be deported.  Misdemeanors like public drunkenness doesn't really hurt anyone, but the guy who gets drunk and gets arrested for being an asshole is a problem waiting to happen.  If he's here as a guest he has just overstayed his welcome.  Kick him out.
      • Non-Americans who bring in their children (or have them here) should make sure that their children are raised properly.  If your kid is a juvenile delinquent or a school dropout you've just overstayed your welcome (and so has your kid if he's not an American)
      • Out of money and down on your luck?  If you've been here for a few years and have been employed and paid your taxes we should give you unemployment insurance for a reasonable time.  If you still can't find a job and you still need help clearly you're not a net contributor.  Thank you for trying and good bye.
      • Want to bring in your retired parents so you can take care of them?  Do you have sufficient funds to support them?  Can you put up a bond to send them back home if you run out of cash?  No?  Sorry.  America has no obligation to support your parents.  No visa.

      This doesn't mean totally cutting off services to immigrants.  For example, if a hard working immigrant family is supporting their children we should provide free public school education and college assistance on a non-discriminatory basis.  That's an intelligent investment in the future of people who are hopefully going to stay in America so they contribute more in the future.

      It does mean cutting off most of the safety net.  We don't have obligations to non-Americans just because they happen to come to America.

      I think if we implemented policies like this a lot of the more mean spirited anti-immigration sentiment would go away.

      •  You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. (20+ / 0-)

        First, you want rich and educated immigrants.  As if they don't take high end jobs from Americans.  Low wage workers do drive down wages, it is simple math.  Second, you want a free education and tuition assistance that American's can't get, but you don't want to feed them.  You are all over the board.

        People aren't anti-immigration because of the immigrants.  This isn't about peoples and safety-nets, it is about economic fairness and opportunity.  Anti-immigration sentiment exists for the reasons Duke gives.  It is because of what the politicians are using them to do for the benefit of corporate America.  This isn't personal between people or nations, like you make it sound. It is about global elitists pigging out on a planetary scale.

        ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

        by dkmich on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:36:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Normally I get called a fascist (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          bob zimway

          for being too anti-immigrant when I lay out this program.

          This is funny - seems like a lot of people here would be more at home at LittleGreenFootballs or Free Republic!

          First, you want rich and educated immigrants.  As if they don't take high end jobs from Americans.

          YEEARGH! (Yes, that's a Dean Scream!)

          Of course they take jobs from Americans... And they also make jobs for Americans!

          Doctors need nurses!

          Software developers buy cars!  Then they drive them and get into accidents!  And they buy cameras and cam corders and all sorts of other shit!

          This is not a zero sum game!

          If it was, 99% of Americans would already be unemployed because we obviously have far more people here today than there were jobs 250 years ago!

          Moreover, do you really think that those people won't get jobs overseas if they can't come to America?  Do you think an Indian or Chinese software developer isn't competing against American software developers for work?  Do you have some moronic idea that you can tax software imports to make people buy American?  You can have them working here and consuming here or working overseas and consuming there... but you can't hide from them.

          Low wage workers do drive down wages, it is simple math.

          Only if you bring in disproportionate numbers of them.  Otherwise they just increase the size of the pie.

          But even then that may not be true.

          For example, if we had more low wage workers we might be able to bring back some of the manufacturing jobs that have gone offshore, creating new jobs at all levels since we would then also need people to train those workers, manage them, flip burgers for them, etc.

          Bringing in new people right at the bottom may help people one step higher on the ladder quite disproportionately by creating more opportunities and more demand.

          Also, you need to take into account the anti-inflationary impact of low wage workers.  It's like WalMart - they drive down wages but they are also a big part of the reason why low wage Americans can still get by despite stagnant salaries.

          Second, you want a free education and tuition assistance that American's can't get, but
          you don't want to feed them.

          Huh?  Americans get free public education.  And I advocated college assistance on a non-discriminatory basis - giving them the same deal that Americans get.

          People aren't anti-immigration because of the immigrants.  This isn't about peoples and safety-nets, it is about economic fairness and opportunity.  Anti-immigration sentiment exists for the reasons Duke gives.  It is because of what the politicians are using them to do for the benefit of corporate America.  This isn't personal between people or nations, like you make it sound. It is about global elitists pigging out on a planetary scale.

          Bullshit.

          We haven't had this kind of anti-immigrant sentiment since the anti-Catholic Know Nothings.  The difference is that back then that kind of bigotry was socially acceptable so people like you didn't try to hide it.

          I'm about as conservative on race as a Democrat gets - I don't support affirmative action for example.  But people like you, who dress up their racism in pseudo-populist sentiments just disgust me.

          You know as well as I do that we wouldn't be having this conversation if current immigrants were overwhelmingly white and English speaking.

          America became the greatest country on earth and stayed that way for close to 200 years by taking the best people from all over the world and giving them better opportunities than they could find at home. I want to continue that with all people - black, brown, and yellow as well as white - as long as they're planning to work hard, raise good kids, and help keep America the best country on earth!

          Frankly, I think most of those African immigrants selling tourist junk on NYC sidewalks will make better Americans than you are - unlike you they're not whining for someone to protect them from Fresh Of the Boat immigrants who apparently work harder and have drive to succeed than you do.

          Maybe you should go back to wherever your parents or grandparents came from and leave America to people who will help make it better.

          •  Gee, now I'm grateful. (6+ / 0-)

            like WalMart - they drive down wages but they are also a big part of the reason why low wage Americans can still get by despite stagnant salaries.

            My point is that this isn't about people.  It is about corporations taking advantage of people, regardless of race, creed, or nation or origin.  

            You would be a good candidate to replace the Statue of Liberty.  Your kind nature shines through.  

            Frankly, I think most of those African immigrants selling tourist junk on NYC sidewalks will make better Americans than you are - unlike you they're not whining for someone to protect them from Fresh Of the Boat immigrants who apparently work harder and have drive to succeed than you do.

            Maybe you should go back to wherever your parents or grandparents came from and leave America to people who will help make it better.

            People who talk about sex all of the time aren't getting any.  People who tell people to go back where they came from, mean it. People who don't read don't comprehend.  Nowhere did I say I oppose immigration.  Not only do you talk out of both sides of your mouth, your mouth doesn't appear to be connected to your brain.

            ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

            by dkmich on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:55:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Does not compute... (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Anthony Segredo, burrow owl

              First, you want rich and educated immigrants.  As if they don't take high end jobs from Americans.  Low wage workers do drive down wages, it is simple math.

              。。。

              Anti-immigration sentiment exists for the reasons Duke gives.  It is because of what the politicians are using them to do for the benefit of corporate America.  This isn't personal between people or nations, like you make it sound. It is about global elitists pigging out on a planetary scale.

              Nowhere did I say I oppose immigration.

              Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.  Rich and educated immigrants take high end jobs from Americans.  Low wage workers do drive down wages.  Politicians use immigrants for the benefit of corporate America - it is about global elitists pigging out on a planetary scale.

              But despite all this you support immigration?

              •  Of course I do. I support what duke says. (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                uscitizenvoter

                I also support what Bob Oak says.  They are both right, you know.  This country is should continue to be a path to a better life for everyone.  Entry level, low-wage, high-wage and high skill.  I also agree with Thom Hartmann, who is anything but a conservative. It needs to be about America and Americans first.  American's means people who are here, people who are on a path to citizenship, and then those who still want to come.  As duke said, it is about preserving and making available the middle class.  The pressure is coming from corporations who are redistributing the middleclass income - up.  

                ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

                by dkmich on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:25:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So you support increasing legal immigration? (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Duke1676, bob zimway

                  Right now?

                  I certainly do... together with the rather minor reforms I just mentioned...

                  •  Chike makes good points (0+ / 0-)

                    and is perhaps a little better informed than some theorists on this board. Willing to make distinctions, set limits, and advocate for some discipline in this process is IMO crucial.

                    His message is values-based and couched in the assumption of the more benign aspects of police power, but I feel that such values don't have to be the domain of punitive conservatives.

                    In fact, if progressives don't take a harder stand toward immigration, the rabid right certainly will, and it won't be a pretty sight.

                    can we handle the power of change?

                    by bob zimway on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:43:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  His message is Republican and (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      BobOak

                      conservative at that.  He doesn't have an ounce of understanding for yen and yang, and there for the grace of god...  

                      ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

                      by dkmich on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 02:26:39 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I advocate a more humane approach than you do (0+ / 0-)

                        I believe in invithing good hard working working class people to come to the United States where they can build a better life for us as well as for themselves.

                        Does that make me a Republican?

                        Well, on one point I agree with the non-racist wing of the Republican part - economics IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME.

                        Bringing in more workers creates more work!

                        Frankly, immigration has become a pathological issue in American politics - it's a wedge issue for both Democrats and Republicans - both parties are massively divided over it.

                        The big danger is a populist anti-immigrant party that pulls in the anti-immigrant wings of both parties.

                        Such a party could actually take power.  And unlike the maunderings of those who claim that Bush and Cheney are plotting a coup, I actually think that this is a plausible route to fascism in America in our lifetimes.

                  •  Right now? Yes, if it based on something besides (0+ / 0-)

                    emotion.  We already ignore science.  Somebody here hard a great four point simple plan.  It was based on a moratorium, background checks, and two other good points.  Whatever policy gets put into play needs to be applicable for all people trying to come to the US.  We are a nation of immigrants.  There is no way we want to stop immigration.  We just need to make it make sense for this country.  

                    ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

                    by dkmich on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:23:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Can you define moratorium please? (0+ / 0-)

                      Seems to me you do want to stop immigration, at least for a while.

                      Those little brown people are so scary when they try to take our jobs!!!

                    •  just because (0+ / 0-)

                      we were a nation of immigrants does not mean has to continue.  There are limits to population for any environment.  The US is vastly overpopulated with respect to resource use, we don't need more immigration, we need population reduction.  This would be less of a strain on the environment, the land, and the social fabric.

                      It's naive to think that we can continue to absorb people endlessly based on some feebleminded sentimentality about being a nation of immigrants and so we must continue to be one even though the previous immigrants brood have already overused the current resources within the land.  

                      The United States is a country of people, not immigrants.  we may have started out as such, but now we are a nation that is overpopulated to the point that immigration is no longer needed.

                      •  YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME (3+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        Duke1676, Nightprowlkitty, Dianna

                        or yourself.

                        •  I think (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          Estudar

                          you have to be kidding yourself if you think that we can continue to sustain continued "growth" without consequences as if the effects of overpopulation are not already apparent and in full effect.

                          The Messiah of the Left wing mvm't, Mr. Gore, mentions it briefly and sidesteps it in his Academy winning documentary.  The increase in pollution, CO2 prdxn, consumption, waste prodxn correlates directly in line w/ population growth.  You all of the amnesty and immigration is great crowd never acknowledge the short term and long term effects of that absorption of people.

                          The US population would have stabilized and even been reduced if it were not for immigration. Just talking about jobs and feeding a family without taking into consideration the full extent of absorbing people and their families in today's current context and climate  naively misses the big picture of preserving the natural environment and its resources.  

                          What's your limit to the US population?  and again to clarify overpopulation is not with respect to space but to resource use w/ respect to the surrounding environment.  answer that question and explain how we will continue to absorb people w/ our dwindling resources.  You have the gov of Georgia praying for rain on national tv, Water is getting more and more scarce (which it is already in much of the rest of the world).  When there's no water there's no life.  So rather simply seeing this as jobs economic issue, you must look at it as an environmental one because without the environment there is no economy, no jobs, no food, no life.  

                          Immigration is sinking the ship, and continuing to advocate for amnesty and more immigration is only going to hasten the downfall of any host country. And please don't talk about SS, bc we can raise the age limits, reduce the benefits, or come up with some other system where people don't use the illogical argument that we need more people working to pay for the current retirees, but then that means we need even more people to pay for the current number of workers.  It will never end.

                          Really ask yourself what kind of country or environment would you leave for your children?  We were a nation of immigrants but we are now a nation of people who have been born and raised here legally.  Today's context and situation is vastly different from 100, 200, 300 years ago.  

                          You have got to be kidding me if you can't realize that.  

                          •  MAYBE YOU SHOULD SELF DEPORT YOURSELF (2+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty, Dianna

                            to Iceland. Where you can enjoy open spaces, white faces and VERY COLD environment. Secondly, should'nt you be posting at Sean Hannity and Tancredo's boards?

                            •  Yeah. (1+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              Dianna

                              Here is the plan.  All industrialized countries close their borders tight.  Anyone left who has problems surviving (perhaps because the US is number one in consuming the world's natural resources)?  Oh well, they can just die, it's their fault after all, being born in the wrong place.  What fools.

                              Bleh.

                            •  of course (1+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              Estudar

                              you never address the environmental question, it's just useless and puerile attempts at a hollow point.

                              I have a brown face what does that have to do with opposing immigration.  People who quickly resort to race as their main argument have a weak point if any at all.  

                              Again, you never answer my question, bc u can't and to dismiss me to another site just shows that you can't handle the truth however unpalatable it may seem.  

                              Left wing fanaticism is just as a bad as Right wing fanaticism, The world unfortunately for you does not fit into neat boxes of left  and right.  

                              Christine, Dianna, and esp NPK,  you have no argument for your agenda, it actually goes against even your "left" wing idea of preserving the environment, immigration is more important to you than the environment.  You all suffer from a false humanitarianism.  You feel like you are showing "compassion" but all you are doing is enabling a behavior and at the same time hastening the downfall of a country.  

                              All for what?  i'm sure some of you have kids, and they'll be asking years down the road wtf you all were thinking in allowing illegal and legal immigration to continue at unprecedented rates.  Someone help us all if the leadership doesn't pass enforcement only laws for immigration, and no amnesty (it was done before in 1986 and look where it got it us).  

                              •  MEANINGLESS (2+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                Nightprowlkitty, Dianna

                                Your comments are worthless, regardless of your color. You have no right to decide when to stop immigration, because your parents or GRANDS came here earlier to have a better live. Now everybody should stay away. Without immgrants both your background and mine, this country will not be  #1 in the world. America is affordable, safer and free.
                                You can't even take a vacation in Germany if you are not white. That is not freedom. A hamburger in germany is over $12.

                                •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)

                                  Recommended by:
                                  Estudar

                                  typical i expect no less, wow this is a liberal site but the invective is just as bad as any "other" site.  And liberals pride themselves on open discussion as long as it is politically correct rather than honest and truthful.  

                                  I do have a right to decide as a citizen for both the present and future generations what we leave them.  We no longer can afford to continue to allow immigration for quite some time.  The US population has to be reduced through natural measures (birth rate check) and putting a moratorium on immigration.

                                  Perhaps we did come here at a certain time, but to continue sinking the ship is foolish and absolutely illogical just because it's always been that (i.e. feebleminded sentimentality).  

                                  Those would be immigrants can help their respective countries, we don't need anymore help.  Check out the new Urban institute's report on math, science, engineers that are coming out of US schools. America doesn't need to be no 1.  We need the rest of the world including ourselves to be better and have a standard of living.

                                  The world throughout has to reduce its population, India is way overcrowded they don't even have enough clean water.  Georgia is praying for water, and yet you want to continue to increase our population through immigration.  

                                  hamburgers being 12$ might actually help the environment, you have less people eating a product that takes a huge amount of resources to create in the first place esp with close to 8 billion people in the world.  Affordable for who? safer and free i'll agree.  Frankly i think your comments are worthless bc you still can't answer the question of what population limit you would have for the US and if you think that the population could be self sufficient w/ respect to the country's respective natural resources.

                                  •  There has been no invective. (1+ / 0-)

                                    Recommended by:
                                    Dianna

                                    There has only been your promulgation of a hateful plan that not only wouldn't work but would hurt other human beings.

                                    Immigrants can't help their respective countries when it's the US who is exploiting all those countries.

                                    Go back to FAIR and that gang of right-wing hate mongers.  That's where you belong.

                                  •  hypocrite (2+ / 0-)

                                    Recommended by:
                                    Nightprowlkitty, Dianna

                                    Your ancestors should have thought about over- population before migrating to America. Honestly, I and most people want a controlled immigration, but we have to find a "humane"way to deal with people that have established themselves here. You can't deport an illegal couple, when their children are U.S citizens. How do you expect a child that has been eating a three square meal, comfortable housing and attending a first class school to survive in a third world country?

                                    •  We know (1+ / 0-)

                                      Recommended by:
                                      Estudar

                                      that their children are not truly legal with the exploitation of the 14th amendment which was only meant for children of slaves.  Birthright citizenship is foolishness, no other country really practices this anymore.

                                      Plus, family is more important than country for a child.  The parents should have never been here in the first place, if they decided to have kids while coming here illegally it's not our problem.

                                      christine, i'm talking about here, now and the future, our ancestors could have done a lot of things but they didn't.  But to continue in their ways is both idiotic and foolish.  

                                      There are children of legal citizens that go without food every day, don't give me a sob story about a child of illegal immigrants who have probably displaced a lower class/middle class legal American family from doing the same for their children.  

                                      The humane way is to fine and jail employers, find the illegal immigrants and humanely deport them and their family back to their respective country.  Look coming here illegally takes money to pay off whoever is smuggling you into the country.  Plus they have been sending enough money back to their country, that hopefully something good may have come of it.  But the US citizens cannot continue to do this and survive.

                                      NPK, you never answer the question of course as usual, and you of all people should talk, you have numerous comments where you curse and malign people with the most banal and assanine adjectives.  I agree that free trade should be repealed but at the same time these people have to go.  How do you know it won't work? just bc you said so, that's frankly moronic.  Well as hurting human beings, there's a lot of that going around in the world, but we are talking about the planet here and its environment not just some short term thing.  Immigration will only continue to exacerbate the problem of climate change as well as dwindling resources which the people of this country will be fighting over (i.e. water).  

                                      no you go over to the respective countries of the illegal immigrants you wish to support and help them out over there.  You are not helping american citizens here by continuing to advocate for illegal immigrants.  Again answer the population limits of the world and the US and that number's effects and consequences on the environment.  

                                      •  As I said ... (1+ / 0-)

                                        Recommended by:
                                        Dianna

                                        ...  go back to FAIR and the wingnuts.  What you are saying has no place here.

                                        Folks here will figure that out sooner or later.

                                        •  Of course (1+ / 0-)

                                          Recommended by:
                                          Estudar

                                          looking at the environmental impact of continuous population growth primarily through immmigration has no place on a supposedly "liberal and enlightened" blog.

                                          Give me a break, your position has no place here, bc you can't address the most important aspect of any issue, the natural environment, the thing that actually allows you to have a discussion about your so called compassion.  Give me a break NPK, it's easy to dismiss than address the question esp when you know you cannot answer that question with your logic and reason.

                      •  LOL (2+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        Duke1676, Dianna

                        The United States is a country of people, not immigrants.

                        Umm ... wrong?

                        And of course I am aware by now that you don't consider immigrants, documented or not, as people.

                        How white of you.

          •  manufactoring (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            dkmich, Nightprowlkitty

            I've done industrial automation all over the country for about 10 years. Those jobs didn't leave because of low cost workers. Those jobs are gone to bust up unions, show governments who's in control, lemming management, many reasons but its not because they couldn't afford minimum wage.

            The US auto manufactors are heading to Mexico to make cars, because they say its cheaper. Yet my Toyota was made right here in the states and is probably more American than most American cars. Whats killing the competitiveness of American companies is their management and the stock market.

            Companies are "global" now and don't have to answer to governments in the ways they have had to in the past. It fuels most of the problems in the 21st century. Iraq, immigration, health care. Income disparity is driving the Robber Barons of our age. If we don't come up with a solution for that, none of the rest will matter. The companies who will lose without illegial immigrants will spend money to make sure they stay and they stay illegal.

            In politics, nothing happens by accident, if it happens you can bet it was planned that way -Franklin D Roosevelt

            by fizzy on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:06:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What's killing the autos is also (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              BobOak

              union wages and legacy costs.  Unskilled illegals drop wages in trades.  Autos is about union busting and unfair competition.  The best thing that could happen would be single payer.  It would finally put companies trying to do business in the US in a competitive position with companies in countries who don't have to foot the bill or health care or pensions.  Toyota will only do what it is forced to do to remain competitive against the big three.  Once they're done busting up the unions and driving down costs and benefits, Toyota will follow suit. Corporations do what corporations do no matter their name or country of origin.  

              ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

              by dkmich on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:27:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't like corporate welfare (0+ / 0-)

                What's killing the autos is also union wages and legacy costs... The best thing that could happen would be single payer.  It would finally put companies trying to do business in the US in a competitive position with companies in countries who don't have to foot the bill or health care or pensions.

                You really have drunk the Big Three / UAW Koolade!

                30 seconds of analytical thought should make you realize that legacy costs have no impact on current auto production.  Those are sunk costs.  If current production isn't spinning off enough cash to fund them then just declare bankruptcy like the airlines, get out from under those debts, and keep running the company.

                Any single payer plan that bails out existing pension plans is just a massive taxpayer subsidy to the shareholders of those companies.  Any reasonable single payer system should be a "top off" system - it should pay the excess beyond what existing pensions require.  I didn't know being a Democrat was about taking tax money from working people and giving it to people like Kirk Kerkorian.

                Union wages certainly are an issue in offshoring.  So what's your plan?  Bust the unions?

                Finally, how would single payer "put companies trying to do business in the US in a competitive position with companies in countries who don't have to foot the bill or health care or pensions"?

                You think single payer is free?

                Obviously companies trying to do business in the US would still pay for US healthcare through taxes.  So the same incentives would remain to move as much as possible of your business offshore to minimize your tax footprint.

                •  Corporate welfare? (0+ / 0-)

                  Weren't you the guy advocating "free" public education?  You can't seem to settle on a side, IMO.  Old sick Americans, we need to let die.  Illegal immigrants should get "free" education and help going to college. Nah, let's just let the autos go completely under, lose more jobs, dump their retirees in the streets, and fuck everybody.  


                  So the same incentives would remain to move as much as possible of your business offshore to minimize your tax footprint.
                   So what little exporting we do do will remain competitive against other countries who don't have to pay that, eh?  And if they make the product in Canada and ship it in, they aren't lower cost?   Gee wonder how they do that with national health care if what you say is true.  Of course, EVERYBODY, pays for the tab with taxes - not just corporations.  

                  ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

                  by dkmich on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 02:46:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                    Corporate welfare?

                    Weren't you the guy advocating "free" public education?

                    Ummm... yes... I was the guy advocating "free" public education.

                    Are you suggesting that's a bad thing?  Do you disagree with government funded public education?  Is that corporate welfare?  Have I accidentally wandered into a bizarro world with a John Birch version of Daily Kos???

                    Old sick Americans, we need to let die.

                    Who said that?

                    Illegal immigrants should get "free" education and help going to college.

                    Yes.  Definitely.  If people are going to be here we need them as educated as possible.

                    Nah, let's just let the autos go completely under, lose more jobs, dump their retirees in the streets, and fuck everybody.

                    If the auto companies declare bankruptcy, the only people who lose are the people who invested in them or loaned them money.  Why is that a problem?

                    The won't shut down the factories if the problem is legacy costs - bankruptcy lets you shed those costs.

                    The retirees don't get dumped on the streets - there is government pension insurance that covers whatever cannot be extracted from the current value of the company that owes the pension.

                    And the only people I want to fuck are pretty girls for whom the feeling is mutual.

                    So the same incentives would remain to move as much as possible of your business offshore to minimize your tax footprint.  So what little exporting we do do will remain competitive against other countries who don't have to pay that, eh?

                    How would it?  Their companies wouldn't be paying those taxes.  Ours would.  So our companies would not be competitive.

                    And if they make the product in Canada and ship it in, they aren't lower cost?   Gee wonder how they do that with national health care if what you say is true.

                    Most of what we import from Canada is natural resources.  We import very little manufactured goods from them.  Because they are not competitive for exactly the reasons I describe.

                    Of course, EVERYBODY, pays for the tab with taxes - not just corporations.  

                    Right.  So, for example, hiring a software engineer in Hong Kong with US$40,000 take home pay will be cheaper than hiring a software engineer in California with US$40,000 take home pay so more and more companies will move jobs off shore and more and more Americans with portable skills who enjoy travel, new places, and interesting challenges will move offshore to chase those jobs, just like I have.

                    I'll be OK in that new world - I can compete anywhere with an IT industry - but is that really good for America?

            •  Silliness (0+ / 0-)

              Those jobs didn't leave because of low cost workers.

              So then why does US labor claim that one of the reasons that companies leave the US is that other countries keep wages artificially low?

              Those jobs are gone to bust up unions

              Like they busted up the UAW?  Oh wait a minute... they didn't... UAW is still here... just smaller because the jobs have gone to countries with cheaper labor.  

              show governments who's in control

              So companies move factories off shore or buy from Asian factories to prove who's the boss?  A US$100MM company contracting with an Asian supplier for low cost manufacturing is trying to show who is boss?  It's got nothing to do with lowest bidder?

              lemming management

              Actually, globalisation is pretty hard on management.  20 hour plane flights, teleconferences at 4:00am, all of that stuff.  Plenty of companies didn't do it.  In fact, the big trend now in Hong Kong and China is for local companies to find US and European companies with decent brands who didn't make the switch to Asian suppliers, buy their valuable assets (brands, designs, distribution chains), and leave the factories to shut down.
              , many reasons but its not because they couldn't afford minimum wage.

              The US auto manufactors are heading to Mexico to make cars, because they say its cheaper. Yet my Toyota was made right here in the states and is probably more American than most American cars. Whats killing the competitiveness of American companies is their management and the stock market.

              Most Japanese companies set up their car factories in the South in Right To Work states with low union membership and they have kept their labor costs relatively low compared to the Big Three.  Think that might have something to do with it?

              Also, how does the stock market make a company uncompetitive?  After all, these Japanese companies are also publicly traded.

              Companies are "global" now and don't have to answer to governments in the ways they have had to in the past. It fuels most of the problems in the 21st century. Iraq, immigration, health care.

              It's not global companies.  It's global supply chains.  Most US companies don't even bother setting up factories any more.  They outsource manufacturing (and even a lot of design) to companies in Asia.  For example, in garment, which I know very well, most small and medium sized brand owners do concept diagrams, specify key materials, and give a target landed cost.  The rest of the design and production is managed by trading companies in Asia who contract with or own factories in low cost manufacturing centers here.

              The only way to stop it is to stop importing.

              You also might want to consider that illegal immigration is the only thing that keeps most of our agriculture and meat packing industries in the US.

      •  There is no worker shortage (13+ / 0-)

        First from the BLS Occupational outlook until 2012, p. 83

        (there is no worker shortage period).

        only 120,000 new science and engineering jobs are projected per year

        Secondly a very important study from  Dr. Harold Salzman, Urban Institute Into the Eye of the Storm shows there is no shortage of highly skilled Americans.

        Recent policy reports claim the United States is falling behind other nations in science and math education and graduating insufficient numbers of scientists and engineers. Review of the evidence and analysis of actual graduation rates and workforce needs does not find support for these claims. U.S. student performance rankings are comparable to other leading nations and colleges graduate far more scientists and engineers than are hired each year