Skip to main content

(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/...

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:05 AM PST.

Poll

What is your opinion of this proposal?

26%563 votes
19%406 votes
7%163 votes
14%312 votes
6%137 votes
5%120 votes
1%35 votes
6%143 votes
8%185 votes
2%53 votes

| 2118 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  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 PST

          [ 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.

          •  *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.

              In this election should we smash the glass ceiling with a plastic battering ram, or save this poor country from ruin?

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

              [ 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.

              •  $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...

                  •  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.

              In this election should we smash the glass ceiling with a plastic battering ram, or save this poor country from ruin?

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

              [ Parent ]

            •  H1B? (0+ / 0-)

              Why would you stop that?

        •  Front paged, no less. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Duke1676, Dianna, Demi Moaned

          It deserved it, no doubt.  

    •  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.

        •  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.

            •  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.  

                •  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.

                    In this election should we smash the glass ceiling with a plastic battering ram, or save this poor country from ruin?

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

                    [ 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...  

                      •  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.  

                    •  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.

            The one thing history teaches us is that every true Patriot complains about their government at one time or another.

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

            [ 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.  

              •  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.  

                  •  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

        http://blog.noslaves.com

        by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:26:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the diarist suggests (5+ / 0-)

          "secure the border".  The difference I see is that he would do so after allowing a predetermined amount to migrate.  But the problem remains, how do we secure the border then when we can't secure it now.  A fence will not do it, high tech techniques can't do it.  I'm not at all sure that such a long border can be secured.

          •  This is the Democratic leaderships version (4+ / 0-)

            Of 'comprehensive immigration reform'.

            'Legalize the 12 million and secure the borders'.

            Which will end up to mean 'legalize the 12 million' without any noticeable change to the current state of illegal immigration in this country.

            Without strong worksite and interior enforcement, the federal government can play whack-a-mole at 'securing the borders' until the cows come home, it will be just another pork fest for Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

            The Democratic Party leadership, Duke, and many others here, believe this country can control illegal immigration without strong worksite and interior enforcement, but it is precisely the lack of strong worksite and interior enforcement which has put us in the situation we are in currently

            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

            by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:08:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you know damn well (8+ / 0-)

              that my positions are far from those of the Dem leadership, and that I have oppossed every piece of CIR cooked up in the Congress so far. You also know that the Dem leadership would never buy into many of my proposals.

              Guest worker ..they love it ...I'm oppossed

              Free Trade ...they love it ...I'm opposed

              Enforcement of labor regulations...they hate it ...I'm for it

              Trying caps and quotas to real data...they hate it...I'm for it

              the only place where we agree is the legal path for the undocumented. and I guess that's where you draw the line in the sand that seperates everything...hence I am in the DLC camp in your mind.

              •  false (7+ / 0-)

                every single attempt at enforcement, you've written a "they are racist xenophobe" diary.  every statistic showing illegal immigration and even legal immigration represses wages, you ignore it and try to suppress it.

                Caps and quotas, repeatedly you have claimed we need to increase those, how we need "more immigration" in spite of the studies pouring in on real BLS statistics proving this is not true.  

                Offline you told me all you care about is getting all of your illegals citizenship, damn the torpedoes on what that does to labor markets or US workers as well as increase more immigration...in the more liberal industrialized nation on Earth who already has the highest amount of immigration than any other industrialized nation.  

                You've never written on diary, nothing on the trade connection or especially WTO, GATS mode 4 agenda and have in fact spammed my diaries trying to bring this agenda to light.

                in your own new attempt to obfuscate the issues right here you ignore any sort of border security or interior employment law enforcement.  You especially ignore the concept of "American workers first" which I amplified once again is a AFL-CIO, Progressive, Populist labor position.  

                Look at your own poll after getting your little agenda front paged.  It's pretty clear people, even on here with the massive open border repress others activists, people do not agree with you.

                http://blog.noslaves.com

                by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:34:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  at this point now after three years of (3+ / 0-)

                  bantering back and forth with you, I will do something I have not done in all that time, and toss you a donut.

                  You've stalked this diary since it came up. Engaged in constant ad hominem attacks without once referring to anything published in the diary ..and now your making shit up about off-line conversations that never happened.

                  If you want to argue points made in the diary go right ahead...but if your just going to go around taking  shit ... you'll see nothing but donuts.

                  •  one back (7+ / 0-)

                    I'm not "stalking" this diary, anybody who buries an open border position and claims it is "progressive" is going to capture my attention.  

                    As far as ad hominem  attacks, anyone can see just how many absolutely false comments you have made on my positions in diaries.  You have claimed I am a member of groups I am not, positions I do not have and most importantly trying to claim I am against "all" immigration or somehow a GOP troll and so forth.

                    To the point your gang even spammed a diary on discrimination against women in high tech.

                    I don't even diary on immigration generally, it's all insourcing.  I just happen to know policy extremely well because insourcing is usually the agenda in these bills.

                    and least you forget, I kept your nice threatening emails claiming to get me banned if I don't "shut up"
                    intermingled with the massive emails requesting me to analyze the merit points as well as your emails talking about caring about the "undocumented" pretty much to the exclusion of US workers.

                    I have every right to post on this thread and point out the details which amount to open border positions  and also the misrepresentation of Progressives, Populists and even the AFL-CIO.

                    http://blog.noslaves.com

                    by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:30:30 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Please stop this. (5+ / 0-)

                      And read the FAQ:

                      Attempting to "out" the personal information of other site users. This isn't just trolling, but is expressly forbidden and will almost certainly result in immediate banning.

                      You are coming real close to this offense by mentioning personal emails, the only proof of which would be to post them -- and that could lead to your banning.

                      Your arguments should stand on their own.  This stuff is just wrong.

                    •  Simple Bob. (0+ / 0-)

                      Publish the emails and show Duke to be a liar. Otherwise, his calling you out as a bullshitter for claiming he admitted his real agenda to you offline sticks. As do by implication your arguments and standing in this community.

                      Publish them.

                      "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

                      by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:42:55 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Bob is posting on topic (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BobOak

                    Bob is posting on topic, on the part of this topic YOU don't want to have any of us discuss, the fact that illegal immigration (regardless of the reason or who it benefits) drives down wages and puts American blue collar workers out of work, and that the way to stop this is to have strong worksite enforcement.

                    That reason alone, and NOT racism, is the reason why smart Democratic candidates need to treat this topic like another 3rd rail.  This next election is ours to lose.  If we drive good rust belt (formerly Reagan) Dems back into the Repug camp over this issue, we are just shooting ourselves in the feet.

                    He has NOT been engaging in ad hominem attacks by pointing out that you simply don't want to acknowledge his points because you instead want open borders or amnesty for those illegals already here, a true vote killer for Dem candidates that support your stance.

                    You seem to think, like Bush, that everyone should come over to YOUR side, rather than that you should acknowledge that folks with opposing views have valid concerns, although you disagree with them.  Accusing those of us that agree with Bob of being racists does not make any positive contribution to the discussion.

                    "Everybody wants to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die" --- Albert King

                    by HarpboyAK on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 04:01:48 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  An Army of Sockpuppets and Strawmen (4+ / 0-)

                      How is it that

                      1. You only have 4 comments to your name.
                      1. You only appeared after Kos started talking about immigration. Your first comment was 11/07/07.
                      1. You happened to appear really late on Saturday night at the exact same time as BobOak, and your the exact same anti H1-B programmer as well. I'll also mention that Duke1676's diary wasn't frontpaged at the time but only rescued - so you had to look for it. I was there at the time.
                      1. You use the same strawman as BobOak saying that Duke uses "accusation's of racists" in his post. When actually Duke uses more facts, and less accusation then almost anybody.
                      1. And most importantly, after only 4 comments you refer to BobOak as "Bob" as if you are familiar with him and say " Accusing those of us that agree with Bob of being racists does not make any positive contribution to the discussion". This sounds like you've been around and agreeing with BobOak for some time, yet there are only 4 comments to your name.
                      1. And finally your comment of "Bernie needs some help!" in your #4 comment attributed to you is exactly what BobOak would say.

                      The coincidences are too much for me.

                      •  that ain't nothin (3+ / 0-)

                        check out this one:

                        Username: ITgirl
                        User ID: 117865
                        Dairy history: zero
                        Comment history: zero
                        Rating history: 30 all uprating Bob Oak today

                        1. Ag [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 12:47:31 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:48:41 EST

                        1. Canada [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 14:36:38 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:48:26 EST

                        1. I agree 100% [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 14:06:15 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:48:05 EST

                        1. tell that to kos [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 14:41:41 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:47:48 EST

                        1. be a critical reader [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 15:23:14 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:47:19 EST

                        1. that's false [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 14:47:31 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:47:05 EST

                        1. rosie the rivetor [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 15:09:02 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:46:48 EST

                        1. truly [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 15:27:28 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:46:16 EST

                        1. 10 bucks [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 03:31:28 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:16:52 EST

                        1. like this? [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 02:18:52 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:16:44 EST

                        1. he distorts [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 12:25:50 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:16:30 EST

                        1. not so [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 18:26:51 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:16:20 EST

                        1. i just pointed to why [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 18:31:37 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:15:37 EST

                        1. at this point [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 18:19:00 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:15:23 EST

                        1. false [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 17:57:49 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:15:11 EST

                        1. just for you [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 17:41:56 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:14:58 EST

                        1. read it and weap [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 15:06:16 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:14:46 EST

                        1. he is [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 14:28:03 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:14:35 EST

                        1. there is [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 12:09:11 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:14:21 EST

                        1. as usual [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 01:57:57 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:13:29 EST

                        1. no not all [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 01:33:37 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:13:19 EST

                        1. don't feed the truth [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 00:55:26 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:13:01 EST

                        1. writing Fiction again? [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 00:40:22 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:12:51 EST

                        1. yes your little [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 18:49:20 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:11:17 EST

                        1. one back [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 17:30:30 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:10:53 EST

                        1. uh huh like these? [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 17:52:53 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:10:09 EST

                        1. then that means [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 17:49:27 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:09:45 EST

                        1. There is no worker shortage [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 13:26:05 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:09:32 EST

                        1. uh huh [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 19:53:31 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:07:15 EST

                        1. enforcing employment law [4.00], by BobOak, Rated: 4

                        Posted on 11/11/2007 19:16:03 EST
                        Rated on 11/11/2007 20:07:03 EST

                        interesting "coincidence" huh?

                    •  Pathetic. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Duke1676, ivorybill, LynneK

                      Bob, is that you?  Sure sounds like it.

                      Show where Duke even brings up racism, much less calls folks on it.  You can't because he doesn't.

                      You are not allowed at this site to just make shit up about people and fling it about.  No one is accusing those who agree with Bob of being racist.  Plenty are accusing Bob and those who are uprating his posts of stalking, lying, throwing out unfounded personal slurs and just plain assholery.

                      You are among that number.  It is very hard to believe you are anything but a sockpuppet of Bob's.

                      Really pathetic.  If Bob's views were so valid he wouldn't need to descend into this kind of assholish behavior.

                •  BTW (4+ / 0-)

                  "You've never written on diary, nothing on the trade connection"

                  Your right,  I never write about trade issues...except when I write about them ...like just last week:
                  Looking to the Root Causes of Migration: NAFTA

                •  Anyone can vote in a dKos poll - not just members (3+ / 0-)

                  Look at your own poll after getting your little agenda front paged.  It's pretty clear people, even on here with the massive open border repress others activists, people do not agree with you.

                  Or did you forget about how you freaked out when "immigrationvoice" freeped the poll in the diary by the President of the Programmer's Guild a couple of weeks back ...and you said that Dialy Kos was supposed to be a site limited to "American Citizens"

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  So I take the poll numbers with a grain of salt.

                •  You may be surprised (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BobOak

                  But some of us react very negatively to labor union extremists - it is not necessary to march in lock-step with the "AFL-CIO, Progressive, Populist labor position" to vote Democratic or to be a Democrat.  Labor unions have their place, and I support their right to organize.  But they can be wrong, or corrupt, and very often they are both wrong and corrupt.  Unions support all sorts of really damaging, downright stupid anti-environmental policies, such as drilling in ANWR, logging old growth forests, etc.  And I believe some of the America-first agenda against undocumented workers is offensive and ultimately damaging not only to the United States but to the hemisphere.  I care a great deal less about protecting a few Union jobs than I do for a gradual, intelligent policy of encouraging hemispheric development while gradually shifting the US economy to be less dependant on undocumented labor.  But the rather extreme enforcement only policies of some unions are anathema to me, and to many on the left.  I think you need to realize that your agenda and that of the left in general, or the Democratic Party in general, may not always be synonymous. And, may I suggest, the unions have become less and less relevant to electoral victory than they were even 20 years ago.  That's partially Republican rule, partially changes in the economy, and partially poor leadership and poor politics on the part of the unions themselves.

                  In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

                  by ivorybill on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:09:25 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  What I believe I said (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BobOak, uscitizenvoter, numen

                I that you believe the US can control illegal immigration without worksite or interior enforcement.

                I believe what I said was true, if it is not I will be happy to retract my statement.

                <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:39:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  you got it (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nightprowlkitty

                  I'll add in worksite and interior enforcement as soon as I get home tonight (I'm on dial-up at work and can't update a diary this large)

                  I've got absolutely no problem with enforcement as a component of any plan...I just oppose it when it's the entire plan.

                  .. and it was not intentionaly left out as a "cleaver open-borders ploy" it was left off because I didn't think I needed to say that I would enforce the laws I'm advocting. Why would I propose laws if I didn't want them enforced?

                  •  So then (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BobOak

                    You support a strong worksite and interior enforcement program, and the deportation of illegal immgrants in this country in violation of immigration law?

                    If that is the case, I indeed have misunderstood at least your position on this issue for a long time.

                    Why would I propose laws if I didn't want them enforced

                    People do it all the time.

                    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                    by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:34:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Now all that's left it to figure out (0+ / 0-)

                      How to do worksite enforcement without a National ID card, or something that may as well be one.

                      It is my opinion that a biometrically encoded Social Security Card will be required at a minimum, which could then be legislated to be required only for the purposes of employment.

                      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                      by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:54:25 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  AFTER (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Nightprowlkitty, mariachi mama, wa ma

                      the key word is  "After" ...if in fact all my poposals were to become law and the quotas and caps were normalized along the lines of supply and demand and needed workers could enter legally, and the backlog gone, and the process steamlined and efficient, and most importantly, the root causes ie: bad trade and foriegn policy agreemnets were being addressed...no problem.

                      If these things were done I believe that "illegal" immigration would become but a mere trickle anyway...and enforcement would be one; possible, and two; necessary

                      As to the employers, once my system was enacted they'd have no reason to hire the undocumented  unless they were doing so solely for reasons of exploitation. If they weren't caught by Labor officails enforcing labor laws ...they would be caught by immigration officials for breaking immigration law.  

                      The key is elminating the "push" that drives migrants here ..once that "push" is addressed ...migration on a whole goes down.  

          •  I think he is suggesting putting an end to the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BobOak

            trade deals that are exploiting people in Mexico and the US.  Much of the US shares a large border with Canada, and we don't have the same problem security those borders.  It speaks to the economics of the NAFTA shafta deal.

        •  There is a labor shortage at the minimum wage (0+ / 0-)

          level and below - when the economy is hot and their is strong labor market demand.  I can remember when MacDonalds was so desperate is was paying $10.00 hour.  Now, that there is no shortage in most labor market areas because of the job loss that has gone on, one is lucky to find a job in manufacturing that exceeds $10.00 hour.  As jobs disappear, higher wage/skilled people take lower paying and lower skilled jobs because it is all they can get. As they slide down hill, they increase the competition for the low wage/skill jobs and drive the low wage and low skilled people out of the job market. They become "those people".  

          •  People need to read Barbara Ehrenreich's (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BobOak

            Nickel and Dimed.

            The rationale for illegal immigration is often "look the unemployment rate is 4.5%, we need "these people'".

            Yes people are working, they are working their asses off, many are working two jobs and they still can't make ends meet, and they are now increasingly being forced to compete with cheaper and cheaper labor.

            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

            by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:46:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you don't compete with foreigners? (0+ / 0-)

              You think you don't compete with people overseas?

              Get real - it's a global economy.  

              Hong Kong is a wonderful example of this.

              Back in the 80s and 90s Hong Kong company bosses tried to get programs put in place to let them import cheap mainland labor.  The government didn't do it - they were a lame duck British colonialist government without an real popular legitimacy and they didn't really have the ability to make tough and unpopular decisions.

              Most people thought this wouldn't be too bad - Hong Kong might lose the low level worker jobs to China but the back offices, with the white collar jobs, would stay in Hong Kong.

              They did... for about five years.

              Then companies started moving their back offices to their factories in China, using Hong Kong people to train up China replacements.

              That process is still going on today, accelerating as companies feel the need to do so because they cannot match their competitors' prices while still operating out of Hong Kong.  

              Now Hong Kong is trying to base its economy on finance and tourism.  Good luck - that's not going to generate a lot of middle and lower middle class jobs.

              Think the same thing can't happen to the US?  Why not?

              •  Jeez, even the propaganda is global. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BobOak

                Now Hong Kong is trying to base its economy on finance and tourism.  Good luck - that's not going to generate a lot of middle and lower middle class jobs.

                 We can all walk around practicing:  do you want fries with that?  do you want fries with that?  do you want fries with that?

                •  Heh... yes... that's for sure... (0+ / 0-)

                  But the lesson is important.

                  If you don't want us condemned to a "Do you want fries with that" economy you need to look for ways to maintain our competitiveness in a variety of industries.

                  I don't share the common despair over service jobs - as we increase automation they will be a more and more important component of the job mix.

                  But I don't think we're ready to totally get rid of manufacturing jobs yet.  It's not just the assembly line work.  It's the other jobs that go with it - everything from driving trucks to building factories to repairing fork lifts to managing line workers.

                  If we want to keep those jobs we need to find ways to have factory workers who are economically competitive with those in Asia and Latin America.

                  Only way I can think of to do that is to import them from Asia and Latin America - Americans certainly don't want those jobs at those wages.

        •  Can't we all just get along? (0+ / 0-)

          (Clunk of police baton to head)

        •  once again you distort and mislead (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nightprowlkitty, mariachi mama

          you rely upon the average reader's lack of knowledge of labor statistics to mislead in order to forward your agenda. The report itself makes no conclusions or analysis of "worker shortages" or whether we need immigrant labor or not.. it simply states projection for job creation over the next ten years. You then take a statistic that pertains to a minuscule percentage of the total labor market and try to make it sound that it is reflective of the entire labor market  ....of course since it happens to be in your chosen field of endeavor, you could care less about the vast majority of people in this country who are not computer programmers/engineers.

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

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

          (there is no worker shortage period).

          BUT, WHAT THE REPORT ACTUALLY SAYS IS JOB GROWTH WILL BE GREATER IN THE COMING TEN YEARS THAN THE PREVIOUS

          Total employment is projected to increase by 21.3 million jobs over the 2002–12 period,  rising to 165.3 million, according to the latest projections of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 This increase represents about 600,000 more jobs than were added over the previous 10-year period (1992–2002). The projected 14.8-percent increase, however, is less than the 16.8-percent increase of the previous 10-year period. Self employment is projected to decline 2.3 percent, from 11.5 to 11.2 million.

          Among the major occupational groups, employment in the two largest in 2002— professional and related occupations and service occupations— will increase the fastest and add the most jobs from 2002 to 2012. (See table 1.) These major groups, which are on opposite ends of the educational attainment and earnings spectrum, are expected to provide more than half of the total job growth from 2002 to 2012. Employment is  projected to grow about as fast as overall employment  in management, business, and financial occupations and in construction and extraction occupations. Employment in installation, maintenance, and repair; transportation and material moving; and sales and related occupations will grow somewhat more slowly.

          And even in your own field you have cherry-picked a stat about one particular sub-group to infer a false claim about the entire sector:

          Computer and mathematical occupations are projected to add 1.1 million jobs, and grow the fastest among the eight subgroups. The demand for computer-related occupations should increase, despite the recent downturn, as a result of rapid advances in computer technology and the demand for new computer applications, including those for the Internet and Intranets. Growth will not be as rapid as during the previous decade, however, as the software industry begins to mature and as routine work is increasingly outsourced overseas. More than a third of new jobs will be in computer systems
          design and related services, and one-fifth will be in the information industry—primarily in software publishers, data processing and related, and Internet-related industries. In
          both groups, projected growth for these occupations exceeds 50 percent. In addition, in many industries, employment of these workers is projected to grow faster than the average for all occupations. Self-employed computer and mathematical workers are expected to increase 39.8 percent.

          And of course you totally disregarded the major point of the report which was the about the large amount of jobs that will need to be filled as boomers begin to leave the workforce:

          In addition to occupational employment growth, another aspect of the demand for workers is the need to replace those who leave their jobs to enter other occupations, retire, or leave the labor force for other reasons. Job openings resulting from replacement needs are very important because, in most occupations, they exceed those resulting from employment growth. Even occupations that are projected to decline provide some job openings—for example, farmers and ranchers and aerospace engineers. (See table 2.) The measure of replacement needs is complex because of the continuous movement of workers into and out of occupations.

          The replacement needs cited in this article are based on the net change in employment (entrants minus separations) in each age cohort over the projection period. Although this measure understates the total number of job openings in an occupation, it best represents the job openings for new labor force entrants over the projection period.9

          Over the 2002–12 period, more job openings are expected to result from replacement needs (35 million) than from employment growth in the economy (21.3 million). Service occupations are projected to have the most total job openings, 13 million. The number of job openings due to net replacement needs should exceed the number due to growth in major groups with average or below-average projected growth, as well as those among service occupations, which includes many occupations with high turnover. Food preparation and serving occupations have particularly high replacement needs. However, healthcare support occupations should have only half as many replacement openings as growth openings. The only major group with fewer openings from eplacement needs than from employment growth is professional and related occupations, the fastest growing. Even within this group, however, eplacement openings exceed growth openings in three subgroups—architecture and engineering; life, physical, and social scientists; and arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations.

          You might be able to mislead and bully the average reader with your false analysis...but those of us who actually know the stats can see right through you.

           

          •  God (0+ / 0-)

            you just name called the Urban institute, one of your allies.  That's who I am quoting.  This is too much.  I think I graduated from kindergarten and high school a long time ago.

            http://blog.noslaves.com

            by BobOak on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:01:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think not. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Duke1676, condoleaser, mariachi mama

              You are acting like a child having a tantrum.  I wonder if you realize how completely you have discredited yourself with your behavior.

              This is a community, BobOak, and it has rules, most of which you have already broken.  You are not allowed to go running around stalking folks and lying about them.  Nor are you allowed numerous sockpuppets whose sole purpose here is to recommend your comments and support your claims.

              Too many folks have seen you for what you are.  You have broken the rules of this community too often.  You clearly don't give a shit about that.  Well I do, and I know there's a lot of other folks here that do as well.

            •  no Bob (3+ / 0-)

              you just name called the Urban institute, one of your allies.

              I didn't mention the Urban Institute study at all... I referred only to the BLS data from the Dept of Labor. But you know that already...it's just part of your usual tactic of obfuscation.

              And I didn't "name call" anything...and by the way WTF is "name call" ...what are you a child?...'mommy duke just "name called" the Urban Institute'

        •  "Labor Shortage" is meaningless. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Duke1676

          So is "Labor Surplus".

          Supply and demand.

          There may be a shortage of labor at the price you want to pay, but that's your tough luck... same as if there is a surplus of labor at the salary you want to be paid.

          There is always a clearing price - where there is no shortage and no surplus.

          Therefore, talking about labor shortages and surpluses just indicates economic ignorance.

          The real question is if importing labor will grow our economy by more than the additional consumption that is added by imported labor.

          That Indian is going to write software whether he is in Bangalore or Silicon Valley, and he is going to compete against American software developers in both locations as well.

          Are we better off if he is in Bangalore or Silicon Valley?

      •  who produce more wealth than they consume. (3+ / 0-)

        who produce more wealth than they consume.

        That means doctors, scientists, engineers, etc.

        It also means agricultural workers and janitors.

        this is relative to what people consume and do they send their money back to another country?? People basically need food clothing and shelter and yes other stuff but is one job more productive than the other?

        if we had all laywers we would starve

        •  You don't understand money. (0+ / 0-)

          If a Mexican working in the US sends $100 to his mother in Mexico has he just made the US $100 poorer?

          Of course - total sum of money in our banks just dropped by US$100, right?

          Wrong.

          That US$100 is useless on its own.  You can't eat it, wear it, or ride it to school.  About the only things you can do with it directly is burn it to keep warm or use it to wipe your ass.

          It only becomes useful when you do something with it - when you send it back to the US to buy something from America.

          That's why all this nonsense about immigants hurting America because they send money home is just that - nonsense.

          As for your final point, I very deliberately did not include lawyers in my list of professions that contribute more than they consume.  If you want to ban non-citizen lawyers (or better yet, all lawyers) I will not object.  We could classify them with other undesirable professions such as pimp and professional beggar.

    •  Congrats Duke (13+ / 0-)

      Front paged, maybe this discussion's time has come

      "every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" Oscar Wilde

      by buddabelly on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:10:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Voted "Looks Like A Good Start" (0+ / 0-)

      Not sure it needs so much history.  We already know reps are demagogues on this.

      Right the Wrongs...Gore in 08!

      by creeper on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:14:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please put in another tip jar (5+ / 0-)

      A lot of us came here after this was frontpaged, and can no longer access your first tip jar

      Official Tequila Enthusiast of the Stephanie Miller Show
      -8.00, -6.31

      by EvilPaula on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:37:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, it was long... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, Hens Teeth

      but I was able to get the gist of it by skimming and I mostly agree.

      I think the difference between immigration now and immigration in the past is this time, Americans are taking their own economic problems out on immigrants because they make a good scapegoat. And they make a good scapegoat because they're easy to identify -- they have brown skin.

      Border security in my opinion should be a separate issue from immigration. We need to reform all of our economic policies and trade deals. I think there's something like 28% unemployment in Mexico. Surely there must be a way to work the Mexican government to fix that.

      I know illegal immigrants. I've worked with them. They aren't much different from Americans once you look past skin color and the language barrier. What I don't like is the fact that they are undocumented, the fact that they don't always pay taxes they should, the fact that they don't always receive benefits they should and the fact that they're often times exploited due to their sensitive situation.

      Furthermore, I would imagine a lot of them don't want to leave their home country, yet at the same time they really have no choice. It's sad and we should be able to fix it. Unfortunately America hasn't been able to fix much these past seven years.

    •  Allternate TIP JAR (23+ / 0-)

      since the first one ran out of time long before most people got to see this diary...

      BTW: Thanks so much for FPing this Susan ... I'm so grateful.

    •  One of the central points is wrong. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mijita, marina, Nightprowlkitty

      America, unfortunately, has always had a significant minority to majority of its populace upset whenever one of the immigration waves hit.  The Irish from the 1840's into th 1900's were demonized with far more vehemence than the current immigration wave.  As were the Italians in the early 1900's.  The Asians of 1960's through 1980's felt it as well, though it wasn't as in the open.  The commonality in all of these is that the predominate number were fairly poor and unskilled.

      The complaints were the same.  Flooding our schools, hospitals and social programs with scarce resources being "squandered" on them.  Accusations of high crime rates which weren't born out according to statistics kept.  All boiling down to a veiled "keeping what is mine."

      The jobs that immigrants are taking have always been low paying jobs.  They are not artificially keeping wages down, the wages have always been at or below the prevalent "minimum-wage."  Even when there weren't minimum-wage laws.

      The answer isn't to lock them out but to fully fund our schools, hospitals and social programs, rather than the current policy of squeezing them to the breaking point.  The answer is to welcome them into society rather than ostracizing them and then wondering why they have resentments.  

      On the flip side, they need to learn our customs and adapt to us.  Facilitating that adaption, learning and implementing customs and ideas from theirs that fit well are also necessary.  But in the end, if they want a high paying job, they will need to learn English and they will need education and training in how we as Americans do things.  That is no different now, then it was with our Ancestors, be they Italian, German, English, Irish, Nubian, Sub-Saharan, Chinese, Viet Namese, Martian or Alpha Centaurian.  And America needs to provide that education and assistance to them freely as well as an easy and welcoming path.

      A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

      by Tempus Figits on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:52:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Undocumented people drive down wages (7+ / 0-)

        Simply because they will work for less. You are correct that these jobs tend to be bottom rung in terms of remuneration. They, however, by definition are "off the books" to a large extent. Therefore they are paid less and subsequently this reinforces for employers that the jobs aren't worth paying a decent (read: not dispicably low) wage

        •  They always have been. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nightprowlkitty

          They didn't just start being "off the books" with the latest wave.  Seasonal workers have always been paid in that fashion.  Pick-up workers hanging out at the local shelters and various designated gathering points have been the rule for longer than the country has been in existence.  

          If you had actually read what I wrote you would have seen where I espouse hooking them up into mainstream America.  I'm all for setting up a methodology for legitimizing the immigrants and setting them on the path for citizenship.  It has less to do with them being exploited for labor and more that they are exploited for less savory aspects of our society.  They don't report when they are shaken down and extorted out of the meager wages they earn due to fear of people's backlash.  They don't report crimes committed against them.  They don't because of sentiments like the one you expressed.  Ones that are not only untrue but playing into the hands of those that are oppressing them by never letting them stop hiding.

          A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

          by Tempus Figits on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:12:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tempus (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bdevil89, BobOak, elliott, CParis

            What sentiment did I express? I didn't say anything about under-the-table status being a new phenomenon.
            My only point is that the "jobs americans won't do" canard is false. These are jobs that employers don't want to pay a decent wage for. I am quite aware that undocumented people are often targeted by criminal elements. For that matter, they are often robbed from legally by non-traditonal check cashing services too. But that doesn't change the fact that employers (generalizing abit) want to pay as little as possible for these jobs, and undoc'd folks will do them for less than any but completely desperate americans/legal immigrants

          •  But Roofing, Construction? (7+ / 0-)

            Those used to be higher paying blue collar jobs....

            They are not today.

            Rick
            08 - Leaning Edwards, Kucinich, Gore, Clark, Obama
            -9.63 -6.92
            Fox News - We Distort, You Deride

            by rick on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:01:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ever Try Tarring Roof In 112 Degrees? (0+ / 0-)

              I have (as A dumb kid), and there's not many people that will do it for a living. No matter what the pay is. I dunno that there are the American workers to do these kinds of jobs. We shouldn't just assume.

              "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

              by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:56:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  My teachers did (3+ / 0-)

                When I was in high school all our (ok, male) teachers got together to put up houses every summer to make more money so teaching would be enough to support their families.  That included roofs.

                They would not be able to any more, because the jobs would pay only half as much because illegal workers have lowered the wages so much.

                Any number of jobs no longer pay a living wage due to illegal workers.  Supporting illegal workers is anti-progressive.

                •  It's One Thing To Do It On The Side. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nightprowlkitty

                  It's another to pick cotton, lettuce, and so forth, for a living, for example. Especially when you and your family need to hop from state to state to follow the agriculture or construction industry to keep making your living. Do you know many people who would be willing to make a career of being migrant workers, even at $25 per hour?

                  We can't just assume that the workers are there.

                  "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

                  by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 03:33:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yup (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BobOak

                    Do you know many people who would be willing to make a career of being migrant workers, even at $25 per hour?

                    My cousins were farmers.  No, they weren't migrants, nor did they hire migrants.  They did all the work themselves.  Their whole lives.  For a helluva a lot less than $25 an hour.  Likely they were making less than minimum wage after everything was calculated.  But they did it.  

                    And I've got friends who are learning how to do it again.  Yeah, they are doing it in a different way--as survivalists, but they know what hard work is like too (try building a rammed earth home...)  You do not want to believe that any Americans have ever known hard work.  But that says something about you, not them.  To believe that a whole set of people is "lazy and shiftless" to try to justify giving their jobs to someone else does not make anyone look progressive...

                    So, yes, I certainly do believe the workers are there.  Personally, I believe it is "racist and zenophobic" to think Americans do not know what hard work is like.

              •  Yep, and I'll bet you don't think (3+ / 0-)

                I dunno that there are the American workers to do these kinds of jobs.

                This statement is racist on its face.

                The only people tarring roofs are illegal immigrants, and by your extrapolation -- 'Mexicans'.

                Stick around and tell us all who is going to do "the jobs Americans won't do" when you have made "Americans" out of those who are doing them now?

                <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:01:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good Question. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nightprowlkitty, immigradvocate

                  Once we make the roof workers, and the migrant workers, and the toilet cleaners, and the ones who take care of our kids and parents, and make our beds at hotels, and cook our meals and clean our dishes at eateries, then these jobs will by definition be done by Americans.

                  But you don't want them to be Americans, and argue to keep them from being so. Or are you for amnesty?

                  "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

                  by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:47:36 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  my husband tarred/macadam roads (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BobOak

                my husband & I both lost our jobs during the same year.  Mine because I was a Union Organizer & my job was taken as part of the 1st labor agreement.  I worked 2 jobs, put myself through tech school 2 nites wk & saturdays & started over.  After 20+ years as a Programmer/Analyst, my job became an H1b insourcing victim!  Thank God for social security!

                My husband lost his job of 17+ years so they could replace him & 9 others with lower paid & lesser benefits employees.
                One of the jobs he took was pouring & raking 'macadam' roads in July & August.  The next one was working in a battery plant 2nd shift where he came home with burn marks all over his body.
                He finally retired after 27 years working at a Cement Plant...many dif positions, including being up on top of a silo in Jan & Feb in the worst weather.  

                I dont want to hear about jobs Americans wont do!
                 

                Where people fear the government there is tyrany: "Where the government fears the people, you have liberty." Thomas Jefferson

                by ROADRUNNER DEM on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:18:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I nearly included the same examples n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BobOak
      •  Do Tell? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bdevil89, BobOak, uscitizenvoter

        The complaints were the same.  Flooding our schools, hospitals and social programs with scarce resources being "squandered" on them.

        What schools, hospitals, and social programs existed when the Irish and the Italians immigrated to the US?

        <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

        by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:11:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your right, they never existed. (5+ / 0-)

          They just sprung up in the last 10 or 20 years.  There were no such things as Soup Kitchens or Catholic Hospitals.  There were no such things as Food Banks or County Hospitals.  There were no such things as charity organizations or the Salvation Army until the last couple of decades.  Your ignorance is staggering.  

          A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

          by Tempus Figits on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:16:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So now you want to make the comparison (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bdevil89, BobOak, uscitizenvoter

            Between federally funded and mandated education and a 'soup kicthen'?

            You want to compare Medicare to a 'Catholic Hospital'?

            You want to compare WIC, school lunch programs, school breakfast programs, ESL, etc. with 'food banks'?

            Do tell, and how numerous were all of these 'Soup Kitchens, Catholic Hospitals, Food Banks or County Hospitals', and while your at it, and I am so very ignorant, please fill us all in on just how much all of these programs were costing the average California taxpayer?

            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

            by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:24:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I was born in a county hospital... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CParis, Nightprowlkitty, Dianna

              in Jackson, Mississippi.  At a time when most of the houses were made out of tar paper.  Education has been publicly funded and mandated nationally since the late 1800's.  It was implemented by most of the Eastern States, including Georgia, Alabama & Mississippi in the late 1820's.

              Prior to Medicare, most hospitals were Religious Hospitals or County Hospitals and were set up to take care of the communities around them.  Medicare itself is only open to citizens of the United States.  Most "illegals" and other immigrants are taken care of by community clinics that get the majority of their money the same way they did 100 years ago, through local governments, religious institutions and charity.  Again, your ignorance is breathtaking.

              Again, most "illegals" do not have access to any of what you listed, other than ESL.  Immigrant's children, who are citizens, do have access to WIC, school lunch programs, etc. they are also going to be the adults that are going to be working to support Social Security and other programs when you retire.  They are again no different than the children of most of our ancestors, few of whom arrived as "documented."  Not only is your ignorance showing, your prejudices as well.

              Try cracking open a history book.  While you are at it, google the history of red tape and how Civil War Vets were tied up by it.

              A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

              by Tempus Figits on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:05:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  WIC is not limited to citizens (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bdevil89, BobOak, uscitizenvoter

                Education has been publicly funded and mandated nationally since the late 1800's.

                Actually it was 1918.

                Immigrant's children, who are citizens, do have access to WIC, school lunch programs, etc

                Once again WIC is not limited to citizens, nor are school lunch or school breakfast programs.

                Immigrant's children, who are citizens

                So let's just ignore the fact that the parents are illegal immigrants, and their children would not be citizens if the parents were not in the country illegally -- and I'm the one who is ignorant.

                I would contend that this did not occur in 'Catholic Hospitals'.

                Not only is your ignorance showing, your prejudices as well.

                Why the obsession with making this about me. It's a rhetorical question, I believe it's all about changing the subject.

                Try cracking open a history book

                Yeah, 'cause this is all about me, and my ignorance.

                <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:34:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  They complain about ESL classes on one face and (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bartcopfan, mariachi mama

                that they can't speak English and won't assimilate on their other face.

    •  Excellent... (3+ / 0-)
      Duke1676... Great analysis!

      This is really exciting. One of the harshest criticisms that Matt Bai levels against the Progressive blogosphere in 'The Argument' is that we have yet to come up with a cogent underlaying philosophy that can give the Progressive movement the persuasive 'Argument' that gives voters a framework to understand WHY to vote for us. As far as Bai is concerned, he believes (I think wrongly) that most of our discourse is rehash of 1960-1970 liberalism, without real integration of how the world has changed since then.

      So much of what we have, here, is reacton to everyday events, though with an increasing discussion of policy (eg: Jerome et al with the Energize America proposals).

      What we've mostly been missing, I think, is a deeper argument of how we, as progressives, view the root causes of problems in our country, and how our base political philosophy needs to address THESE. Not just as a repudiation of that conservatism stands for, but with an eye toward creating a positive vision of what we, as progressives, stand for -- and why we deserve to lead in the decades ahead.

      I think Duke1676 has done a great job of starting that Argument.

    •  financialization (4+ / 0-)

      You mention globalization and neoliberalism (conservative economic policy; I know the term "neoliberalism" is misleading, but that’s the term academicians are using for it. We really need to get so re-framing of that.) as causal factors for the loss of middle- and working-class economic security, but unfortunately you do not mention  financialization. As Gerald A. Epstein notes in his Introduction to Financialization and the World Economy WARNING – PDF file, but it’s not too large

      Importantly and paradoxically, Duménil and Lévy argue that not all classes are injured by these crises. On the contrary, finance benefits handsomely from the same processes that create economic crises and injure so many others. Hence the costs of financial crises are paid by the bulk of the population, while large benefits accrue to finance. Duménil and Lévy provide new and valuable data documenting these trends in the case of France and the USA, and these issues are further pursued in the case studies on financial crises in emerging markets in Part Four.

      In Chapter 3, Epstein and Jayadev present a profile of similar distributional issues in a larger group of countries. They show that rentiers – financial institutions and owners of financial assets – have been able to greatly increase their shares of national income in a variety of OECD countries since the early 1980s. . .

      Using the case of the US economy, Crotty argues that financialization has had a profound and largely negative impact on the operations of US nonfinancial corporations. This is partly reflected in the increasing incomes extracted by financial markets from these corporations; trends identified also by Duménil and Lévy and Epstein and Jayadev. For example, Crotty shows that the payments US NFCs paid out to financial markets more than doubled as a share of their cash flow between the 1960s and the 1970s, on one hand, and the 1980s and 1990s on the other. As NFCs came under increasing pressure to make payments, they also came under increasing pressure to increase the value of their stock prices. . .

      Financial markets’ demands for more income and more rapidly growing  stock prices occurred at the same time as stagnant economic growth and increased product market competition made it increasingly difficult to earn profits. Crotty calls this the ‘neoliberal’ paradox. Non-financial corporations responded to this pressure in three ways, none of them healthy for the average citizen: 1) they cut wages and benefits to workers; 2) they engaged in fraud and deception to increase apparent profits and 3) they moved into financial operations to increase profits.

      Hence, Crotty argues that financialization in conjunction with neoliberalism and globalization has had a significantly negative impact on the prospects for economic prosperity.

      Remember that NAFTA was sold as helping to solve illegal immigration, because NAFTA was supposed to cause an economic boom in Mexico, improving economic conditions and thus lessening the incentives for emigrating. On this count alone, NAFTA ought be repealed. But I think the great secret behind all the trade deals – none of which have delivered the economic riches promised to workers – is that the most important goal, from the perspective of ruling elites, was the spread of financialization.

      A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

      by NBBooks on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:09:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  5 recs (3+ / 0-)

        and I hope you write about this in a separate diary.  The global corporatist labor arbitrage agenda needs a much greater spotlight.  Citigroup, which just managed billions in losses I believe was one of the chief architects of the China PNTR for pure short term capital gains.  They also are buying up banks globally, often through these trade agreements, manipulating the short term PPP ratios as well.

        http://blog.noslaves.com

        by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:40:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  another considered opinion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Duke1676

    A bit too heavy to absorbed, but highly impressed by the detail and arguments put forward.

  •  It's really long... and really late (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TexDem, Duke1676, Hens Teeth

    ... and I've bookmarked it for later digestion.  You've put a lot of thought and work into this, and it deserves a good read when I'm conscious.

    I've had a few thoughts on immigration, as an issue more isolated from the broader economic and justice issues you've raised:

    The border should be thought of as a semi-permeable membrane, in a fluid dynamics sense.  A "secure border" is an impossibility in an absolute sense, and the wrong goal.  Reducing undesired immigration should focus on two goals:  reducing the pull of immigrants into the US, and reducing the push of immigrants from abroad.

    Reducing the pull into the US is best achieved by criminalizing hiring of undocumented immigrants.  If employers go to jail for hiring the undocumented, their incentive to come here will be sharply reduced.  This should, needless to say, be accompanied by a path to legalization for those already making lives here in the US.

    Reducing the push into the US from abroad should be accomplished by rewriting trade agreements to help foster healthy economies in the countries immigrants come here from.  Progressive trade policies should be aimed at promoting middle class development here and in trade partners like Mexico.  Stopping the dumping of subsidized US corn in Mexico is one example of such a policy.

    I will read your diary tomorrow with interest.  Thanks for all the work and thought you've obviously put into it.

    Rudy Giuliani is a small man in search of a balcony. -- Jimmy Breslin

    by Dallasdoc on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 11:05:44 PM PST

    •  Hispanics will love that... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      immigradvocate

      Most illegal immigrants have some kind of false documentation.

      If you criminalize hiring people with obviously false documentation two things happen:

      1. Honest employers who aren't sure won't take risks - they will refuse to hire legitimate workers with minor irregularities or unusual documentation.
      2. Racist employers will use this as an excuse not to hire legal workers who are Africans or Latin Americans.

      •  False documents are not permissable for anyone. (4+ / 0-)

        It raises havoc with taxes, social security, and other systems.  Would you support white dislocated males over the age of 45 start using false documentation to make them younger?  Age discrimination is out there, and so is discrimination against dislocated union employees, and high wage workers.  You see, non-of them would be content with less, according to the employer community.  This isn't just about immigrants.  Immigrants are a part of our workforce.  It is labor law enforcement for all.  Duke is so on.  

        •  One of the problems with the fanatics (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike Erwin

          on the anti-immigration side is that they have clearly closed their minds.

          For example, look at this guy.

          My point (and I think it is clear) is that criminalizing hiring people with false docs will result in discrimination against people who look like immigrants, whether or not they are really illegal.

          He just can't get it... it's like trying to have a discussion with a broken record.

          •  False documentation is not good policy. (4+ / 0-)

            Using it can't be supported or ignored.  It would be better to "issue" something than to let the use of false documentation go ignored. Why is it that everytime Duke posts a reasoned and intelligent piece on immigration, somebody has to get their shorts into a bunch and get way too emotional and personal.  Pro or con, comments that are too emotional, irrational and personal only serve to derail the conversation.  Calm down.

            •  Straw man... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chuco35, Mike Erwin, bob zimway

              A straw man argument is when you pretend someone said something he did not say so you can attack it and try to win the argument.

              When someone uses a straw man argument it tells you two things:

              1. This person is dishonest - he lies knowingly and deliberately.
              2. Secondly, he knows he can't win the argument by logic... so he needs to resort to falsehoods and trickery.

              dkmich compounds the dishonesty of using a straw man argument by doing so badly.

              No one has claimed that false documentation is a good policy or that it should be supported or ignored.

              He's a dishonest liar who knows that he can't win an honest argument.

        •  It's not as simple as it looks. (6+ / 0-)

          Many people on the margins may not have perfect papers either. Some people don't drive or have state id's because they don't have a car. Other people as in natural disasters may have had theirs destroyed. Some people have sex changes and their names at birth don't match their apparent gender. Let's not get into the whole adoptee thing were adoptees have a hard time getting their original birth certificates.

          There's a whole discriminatory story about who gets ID or not that we have yet to even try to address, and if we criminalize this, people may just hire perfect middle class people with perfect middle class papers who went to all 12 years of school and never bounced from institution to institution, were never runaways, were never kidnapped or on the run from abusive parents, et al.

          A Crushie for Democracy There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and fools.

          by CarolDuhart on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:22:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You Didn't Even Touch... (3+ / 0-)

            ...on women married multiple times having various names, people having common names, people's names being misspelled, or strange common names because of origin.

            What a mess. Imagine an honest manager running a 100 employee factory having to draw from the labor force where illegal workers are found, with a criminal statute looking over your shoulder. Or if you're a hispanic woman with a new married name who hasn't bothered to go through change paperwork.

            "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

            by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:02:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Boy I Can See That As A Big Fat... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marina, Nightprowlkitty

        ...defense in a federal or state discrimination case -- "We were bound to follow federal law, even if it meant discriminating against the worker (Mexican, et al), at pain of us getting thrown into the federal hoosgow."

        "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

        by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:55:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think after you have some time to read (10+ / 0-)

      the diary. You might think differently about this one:

      Reducing the pull into the US is best achieved by criminalizing hiring of undocumented immigrants.  If employers go to jail for hiring the undocumented, their incentive to come here will be sharply reduced.

      as far as "workplace enforcement" goes, I see the problem a little differently:

      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.

  •  Great diary - I like the idea of an (5+ / 0-)

    independent board of experts to set immigration numbers annually based on objective criteria. And your premise - that much of the current anger about immigration - can be traced to the insecurity that so many Americans feel due to the change in economic and social conditions over the past 25 years is dead on.

    Thanks for all your good work on this subject - it was so disheartening to read many of the harsh comments posted about immigrants on dkos during the Senate debate on comprehensive immigration reform. It's shocking how divorced many are from their own family histories. . .  

  •  Reforming Immigration System is Important (4+ / 0-)

    I've read stories of people waiting years for an Immigration Hearing, let alone green cards, of ICE being outdated and underfunded. Many of the undocumented are undocumented because of the interminable wait for papers and the sheer expensiveness and arbitrariness of the system-where one judge or official can make essentially life or death decisions with no appeal.

    We need also, special arrangements for Mexico and Canada that allow people to be temporary workers for a while and then return. We need relaxed visa and other requirements that take into account our border relationships and travel arrangements between the two.

    My suggestion would be "special status" visas that allow for a 30-90 day visit, with papers (automated, even online) for renewal filed with ICE if people want to stay longer for people from Canada and Mexico. These would not, unless approved, allow for employment, but would allow family visits and shopping. A certain percentage of the border crossing is ironically the result of harder immigration rules, where people who simply want to visit relatives find barriers so great that they have to stay.

    Demilitarize the border. That is, take off the attitude that Al Queda is going to sneak across the border. Groups like that have the money to pay someone to go through the front door, and are better handled with surveillance and cooperative law enforcement anyway. Building a moat does little except disrupt cross-border commerce.

    A Crushie for Democracy There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and fools.

    by CarolDuhart on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 11:37:26 PM PST

    •  More on the Board: (5+ / 0-)

      I would add academics and perhaps, on a secondary consultative kind of Board (maybe work with the UN on this one) representatives of nearby nations who fit the main board's requirements. Input from nearby nations would be one way to get cooperation on the other end.

      Another proposal of mine would be a commission for immigration like we had for base closings. Such a commission could study the situation in depth with hearings, investigations, scanning current laws, so forth. The undocumented and the documented, impacted communities and so forth could testify with immunity and at full length about the situation. It could commission data gathering, studies and so forth.

      I would also move ICE out of Homeland Security and make it a part of HUD or Labor. Immigrants aren't terrorists, and the mindset of such a place is to treat all foreigners as potential criminals. In HUD or Labor, the mindset would be to treat them as potential citizens.  Also putting them in an agency that understands the U.S on the work, education, side might help get some more realistic policies-policies that encourage volutary compliance.

      A Crushie for Democracy There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and fools.

      by CarolDuhart on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:21:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When the Commission (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Duke1676, marina, Nightprowlkitty

        Does its findings, I would then sunset the current laws, grandfather those currently in line, and then have a new system starting from scratch with the new laws coming out of the Commission findings. All persons coming into the United States after a certain date would be covered by the new laws and under new conditions.

        All undocumented would be given amnesty provided they are not felons. They would have to have a minimum residency requirement too, three months or six months notice and residency, which allows family to finally reunite and settle in before the new rules take effect. Non-violent felons (drug possession and some such) would have conditional stay after release for 5 years before qualifying for a conditional amnesty provided they stay clean and sober and law-abiding. Violent felons would be deported after finishing their sentences-if undocumented and came too early to set up tie elsewhere, we would have a prearranged place for them to be sent. Perhaps Russia could use a few workers on the wild frontier

        A Crushie for Democracy There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and fools.

        by CarolDuhart on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:06:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As for those who worry that it is unconditional (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Duke1676, marina, Nightprowlkitty, Fredly

          Unconditional would depend upon age. Children under 18 would be unconditional. Those who were brought here as children under 15 would be unconditional. Adults could be required to do the following in reciprocity:

          1)Pay back taxes either lump sum or as part of extra withholding-those who have fallen on hard times and cannot pay could be required to do some sort of workfare or community service until they find a job that allows for withholding.

          1. Take the citizenship test like every other immigrant
          1. Get and complete their education and train for a job if they have the ability.
          1. Register to vote as soon as they qualify for same

          Those over 65 would be unconditional unless they are hardened criminals on the run, convicted of "crimes against humanity" or fall under the violent felon category. They would have to follow the citizenship test and the community service test, although they may not be required to find paid employment.

          Legal immigrants who may feel cheated, I have a few provisions for you too:

          Anyone who's citizenship has been put in "pending status for 7 years or more-straight to green card, with similar conditions for family members as the amnesteess. You would also have to qualify as far as taxes, lawabiding behavior, citizenship and so forth.

          A Crushie for Democracy There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and fools.

          by CarolDuhart on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:19:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I managed to about 90% understand it. (5+ / 0-)

    Which is good for me at this hour for a weighty subject.   Good diary, well-reasoned, and conducive to some (hopefully) intelligent discussion.  Rec'd.

    Democrats - We refuse to caucus in the missionary position.

    by SaneSoutherner on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:08:33 AM PST

  •  Most thoughtful (6+ / 0-)

    piece i've seen on immigration by anyone anywhere. Even changed my view a bit (hard to do!). Imho this should be frontpaged to start a Real discussion. I think you've basically put forth the majority view on immigration. Enforcing the laws, securing the borders and changing the racist classist system we have now. As well as stopping the war on the working class.

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

    by cdreid on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:19:36 AM PST

  •  Recycling a Yesterday comment: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty

    They WANT 8-9 month seasonal visas (0 / 0)
    they are PAYING for houses and families and infrastructure south of the border.

    I sell them meat goats, they ARE the chicken industry, they are great customers for used car dealers.  They open stores and resturaunts.

    But many rely on seasonal work, just like our Steinbeck okies, and forcing them to pay coyotes to cross the border makes them more desparate.

    9 month visas would give rise to charter buses enabling them to cross cheaper, send MORE money home.

    They could better be able to do the middle class "buildup" our war-mongering/dictator enabling policy does not do.

    •  Agree.Other Concerns I Have With (0+ / 0-)

      this proposal:

      *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.

      My only concern here is the method used to appoint these board members. On the one hand, if you let the president appoint these members(even if he can't "un-appoint" them) you risk a stacked board, but if you allow un-appointing, it defeats the purpose. I suppose you could have congress appoint them but good luck with that. They're doing such a good job as it is.

      *Providing a path to legalization for all current undocumented immigrants living and working in the US.

      AND THIS

      *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.

      assume facts not in evidence. The assumption made is that illegals would stay here given the choice. I've lived in CO and UT in the past five years and am personally aware of a case in each state where the illegal came here intending to go back at a later date and did so. The problem was the immediacy of their needs and not being able to wait for the "guest worker" process. They came illegally, worked and made money they sent home, and have since left. While this scenario would be in the minority, I think there might be a case for a "very limited" guest worker program.

      *Secure the border by first insuring 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.

      Only issue here: Why not work on securing the border concurrently with improving entry by legal means? Doesn't have to be a "one then the other" situation

      *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.

      Absolutely. Would also add "decreasing family size of Mexico families" to the list of goals. Mexico, Catholic, have those kids. More kids, more money problems.

      *Foster an immigration policy that strengthens the middle and working class through unionization and participation in the electoral process.

      While I agree with unionization in principle, I question the notion of immigration policy that fosters unionization. Better get a filibuster-proof Senate to enact this.

      *Strict enforcement of all labor and employment laws

      Absolutely.

      *Modernize and streamline the immigration process and eliminate the backlogs for those already in the queue

      Again, absolutely. Backlogs may be one of the biggest contributors to illegal immigration.

      *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.

      Agree with caveats. I don't believe we can continue to let vast numbers in unchecked. I like good workers, contributors to our country etc... but I don't want thugs, criminals, or leeches.

      •  Mexico's Population will start to Decline by 2040 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuco35, Duke1676, mariachi mama

        Three quick points....

        (i) As a Mexican-American, I'd be insulted with a guest worker program.  That's akin to creating second-class citizens.  Unless you would provide for a path to citizenship, I would be staunchly against it.  It's been tried before, and it's been a miserable failure.

        (ii) Most undocumented immigrants will say that they intend to return, but, according to a recent Pew polls, very few rarely do.

        (iii) Mexico's population increased only 0.99% last year, a record low rate for the country, and less than our own population.  By 2040, due to a low and declining fertility rate among Mexican woman, Mexico's population is expected to start decreasing.

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

        by PatriciaVa on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:59:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just a quick follow-up (0+ / 0-)

          Feel free not to respond if you've moved on to another thread.

          1. If you disallow for a guest worker program then by default you advocate the position that one must live here to work here or at least be on the path to living here. I've lived in cities where there was a residency requirement for city workers. I strongly opposed that and I oppose requiring workers to live in the country they go to work in. While the particulars of the 2 situations are disparate, the essential principle is the same. Having said that, you'll note that in my previous post I felt that a small portion of incoming workers would want the guest worker designation anyway.
          1. Again, you note that in my previous post I observed that those that would wish to return to their native country and actually do so is a small number.
          1. 2040? I think it's dangerous to make assumptions about the situation 33 years from now. Think back to assumptions made in 1974(33 years ago) and whether they panned out. Nevertheless, it is good that the population is forcast to start decreasing somewhat but one wonders at what point in time the population would reach a point that the Mexican economy could easily support it. It surely would take years beyond 2040.
  •  Excellent work (5+ / 0-)

    You've hit a few nails on the head.

    Only thing I'd stress a bit more is that it's not just Mexico but Central and South America in general.  The reason these people are so willing to sacrifice everything to come here is because many of them have nothing to sacrifice.  The conditions that many of these people live in where they come from is criminal.  The conservative movement has made things worse with their political and economic policies.  Free trade deals with Peru wil only make things worse for example.  They're already poor and will only be even more exploited.  This is partly why we've seen broad pushes from certain countries to not only go against Bush and the US (not only from the leaders but the people who elect those leaders who generally tend to skew far left) but to also go against everything Bush and the US seem to stand for like deregulation and privatization.  We've seen it in Bolivia, Brasil, Venezuela and other places where for example natural resources are being taken over by the gov't and revenues are being used by the gov't as it sees fit.

    What I'd suggest is a radical shift in our thinking when it comes to Central and South America.  Rather than sending billions to Pakistan to prop up a military dictator, how about being more amicable with Brasil or some other country, sending more money there instead.  The resources we currently get from the Middle East we can just as easily get from Mexico, Bolivia, Brasil and so on.  Until now we've been doing it with a heavy hand.  We should start doing it as partners and equals.  

    It is in the US's best interests if we help these countries out since they are the largest source of illegals currently in the US and they're our neighbors.  Rather than signing free trade deals, how about fair trade deals with strict stipulations that would pretty much force them to treat their work force more fairly for example thereby helping their people rise up economically.  Improve their situation at home and they won't be so willing to come here.  

    But beyond that we should also give their people more opportunities to come here and make some money.  Open up legal immigration to those countries beyond what it is today.  No temporary visa though.  Let them come here legally, then if tehy so choose to apply for citizenship and decide for themselves whether to return or raise a family here.  

    One thing I see raised up about immigrants that always bothers me because of the lack of understanding is the old argument about how 'they' always come here to make money and then send it home.  So long as they're paying taxes on the money they are legally making here, who gives a fuck what they do with it?  If anything that money going overseas is helping us out because it's helping propping up their economy.  By bringing the current 12 million undocumented people here into our system and expanding legal immigration to Central and South Americans it will mean more tax revenue for us but will also very likely mean that more money will go to their home and will filter up into those comunities.  It will be used there to start businesses, rebuild homes, churches, and other vital sturctures.  Many of the people could very well return with their American dollars, but many like my parents will keep one foot here and one there with the money spread out among both communities.  

    At this point many of these people, including some I call friends, will not go back with their hard earned money because the minute they do go back with a new pair of shoes they're liable to lose those shoes and their life.  So they're stuck here in a country that is increasingly becoming hostile towards them for reasons that are not their fault.

    We have to improve our relations with these countries.  We need to treat them as equals while being stern about improving their quality of life.  We could and should send more aid money there instead of the middle east, even using it as a carrot to help them improve the quality of life.  We also should expand legal immigration to these countries so that more of them can come here and make some money and find a better quality of life which they can then reimport to their country.  These are all important to cutting down on the illegal immigration in our country IMO.      

  •  They already have a path (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bdevil89, BobOak

    Duke:

    Once we remove millions of would-be "illegal" immigrants from the mix by providing them a legal path to immigration

    They already have a clear path: Go home and apply like everyone else.  We don't need to make illegal immigrants into citizens to achieve a just result.  Respect for the law matters.

    If we need workers, we can let them in pursuant to a sensible guest worker program -- one that gives them freedom to change jobs and participate in collective bargaining. Australia's system is an example of how not to do it: potential immigrants are virtual prisoners of their sponsors.

    I'm all for granting the ones who are here temporary guest worker status, provided that they (1) come out of the shadows, (2) enter into an agreement stating that their children will not be citizens, requiring them to report pregnancies and leave in case of pregnancy, and (3) leave when their time is up (with serious criminal penalties for failure to do so).

  •  excellent diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Duke1676, Nightprowlkitty, Hens Teeth

    and plan. I've been commenting on this issue a lot over the last few months too, and believe that progressives should be discussing it. It seems to me that the heart of the issue is the treatment of our fellow human beings; and it's up to us to stand up for them. For me, this is the root of what drives my values as a progressive/liberal.

  •  Wow. (9+ / 0-)

    I would put this diary on the same level as the beginnings of Jerome, et al.'s progressive energy policy.

    Brilliant work, Duke.

    One question -- you speak of an independent agency.  But who will appoint this independent agency?  Doesn't that also factor into it -- as whichever politicians are in power at the time will appoint folks they feel reflect their views.  Or do I have this wrong?

    It's way past time we come up with a real progressive policy on immigration.  Our Democratic reps. are doing an awful job and buying into the Dobbs/Tancredo meme as we speak.

    Very grateful for this.

  •  Different country (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bdevil89, BobOak

    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).

    That 12% does not include illlegals who are estimated to number 12 million. That means that approximately 4% (12/300) of our population is made up of illegal immigrants, and the percent of Americans who are foreign born is nearly 16%, the highest percentage in our nation's history (excluding the colonial period).

    In absolute numbers it's far higher, as the population of the United States has increased from 76 million in 1900 to 303 million today.

    But the physical size of the country remains the same. The land area is not increasing. We no longer have an empty continent that needs to be filled up.

    •  Read again (8+ / 0-)

      "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",

      •  illegals usually don't respond to (8+ / 1-)

        official looking government forms asking them for information.

        So they are being undercounted. The Census questionaire doen't ask legal status, so there's no way of knowing how many got counted.

        •  This diary ... (10+ / 0-)

          ... has been very well researched.  In comparison, what you are saying is solely an opinion.  Not helpful.

          If you have facts and figures to show, go right ahead.  But your assumptions are just that -- assumptions.  And given your anti-immigration diary of yesterday, which clearly shows your own biases, I find your arguments very weak.

        •  You are really (13+ / 0-)

          not providing anything for working for a solution, Ashley.

          There was not a huge amount of hostility during the last census and the issue wasn't politicized. During the last census, immigration raids were suspended and immigrant families didn't live in a state of fear.

          I'm quite sure that the statisticans have a pretty good idea of how to estimate populations.

          If you really want to talk about this, please bring more than you gut reactions to the table. We need to talk about this, but without the BS.  

        •  I'm uprating because I can't believe (12+ / 0-)

          that comment got troll rated.  Is was a good question that got a good answer. This is why intelligent conversation on this issue is impossible.  Please quit throwing your food.

          •  It's the way things work around here (5+ / 0-)

            There are certain topics which force you to walk on eggshells, and illegal immigration is on the very top of the list.  If you voice a dissenting opinion on this topic (the militants are after Ashley now), you are frequently troll-rated and sometimes, right out of existence.  I'm uprating all of Ashley's posts here on account of that baseless and malicious attack.

            The ironic part of all this is that I am being accused of being an illegal immigrant, as the pro-illegal-immigration crowd is livid at me for my expression of views.  "We must have rules," they scream ... but somehow, rules are only meant to be enforced when they work to their personal advantage. God forbid that we should deport the illegal immigrants because, "well, we have rules."

            If I'm made to disappear, so be it.  At least, they can't credibly argue that we have to do anything to accommodate illegal immigrants. :)

        •  That's an unsubstantiated statement (5+ / 0-)

          and summary conclusion. It makes no difference as to the exact numbers. The government has methodology to establish baseline populations. Individuals may fear deportation or other sanctions but that is immaterial to the subject at hand here.

          "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
          If you want to go far, go together.
          We have to go far, quickly."

          by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:53:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's probably closer to 20 million (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bdevil89, BobOak, uscitizenvoter, numen

          and real people are seeing real effects.  James Carville observes:

          Here, responses range from just sheer amount of money the country is paying for their support – "it taxes everything ... twenty fold" – to the improbable belief that many are on welfare or food stamps and induced to say here. Some of these impressions conflict with the facts, but many speak concretely about hospitals that can’t deny health care and schools that must cope with the children and special language needs. For others it is more basic: "I’m self-employed "and couldn’t afford health insurance for a year. "We can’t afford to do anything because we’re paying for health insurance. They just go in and get it free." The discussion of benefits leads to some pretty ugly responses, "Send the people back that don’t have [papers]. Our country has been too kind. I’m sorry."

          And with all the problems with jobs and the economy, how can you give over sectors of the American economy? Some do say that "tons of illegal immigrants in this country" are "doing a lot of jobs that nobody else wants to do." But that is almost always contested in the groups: "I got boys that can’t find jobs, and I know high school kids that can’t find jobs because" the immigrants are willing to work many more hours for less. "Where is our jobs program for kids in [town] to dig those things out?" They think, not implausibly in some cases, "Let’s get control of what’s coming in and then there are jobs for our people." With underlying worries about being forced to work at Wal-Mart, they think the illegal immigrants who work hard and for less "are driving the service industry out of our country."

          The voters most angry about the issue are those with a high school education, African Americans and those in rural areas, both black and white.8 This is also the top frustration for voters who want to vote Democratic for president but hold back from supporting our leading candidates. For all these target groups, their second frustration is ‘losing American jobs to China and India’ – part of a more general and poignant critique, why are our country’s business and political leaders not standing up for American workers and employees and more broadly, America.

          Voters want control of the borders and workplace and recreating an immigration system that works and oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants – positions supported by about two-thirds of the country.9 For them, that is the starting point, the common sense of the issue. If political leaders do not start there, they are not likely to be heard on other steps.

          If you've had your identity stolen or watched your wages dwindle into nothingness on account of the hordes of illegal immigrants working for slave wages, you are less inclined to extend "compassion" to others -- as charity begins at home.  Carville hits the nail on the head, pointing out that for 40% of independent voters, this is the number one issue.  Now, you can either be Ron Paulists  and stay pure, but if you think we can stand another four years of Republican rule, you are on your own.  

  •  long but no way to avoid it on such a complex (9+ / 0-)

    issue and to make it short simply becasue some dont like long diaries would do the subject injustice. I ageeed with much of what you said and disagreed with some. I really fell between---good start, needs work and not bad I agree with most. voted under former. The most important reason I am commenting has nothing to do with if I agree or disagee or to dispute anything. I want to acknowledge the amount of work and effort you had to put in to this diary, You did a great deal of research, work and organized it excellently. I write long diaries. those who comment about it I usually want to say, then why did you read it?, I don;t, commendable work, dedication and effort. thanks for taking so much time to address an extremley complex and controversial issue. it is one I am concerned we are never going to get anything that will pass because so so so many diverse views. Thanks,TKK.

    Honesty with ourselves and others advances change but it is tolerance that keeps us that way. Bill Wilson.

    by TKK on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 09:06:49 PM PST

    •  thanks TKK (8+ / 0-)

      I appreciate the acknowledgment.

      All too often people want their information pre-digested and sound-bite ready in neat little packages....and when it comes to this particular issue, that unwillingness to get past slogans and labels has been one of the major causes of all the contention. Too few are willing to look past the pablum fed to them by TV pundits and talk radio and do the needed research to examine what's really going on.

      Thanks for taking the time to read this, and of course your kind words.

      •  your welcome. I am going to reread as was quite (4+ / 0-)

        tired last night. If I come on anything I would like to suggest will comment. will try to do today. like I said I believe of all the political issues of today, this is the one that will be the most difficult to come to a consensus on and I believe it is in the top five or so that NEED to get resolved. it is not like pro-choice or pro-life, or pro gun control/no gun control or pro death penalty or not. I could name another five or six major issues that are all controversial but fairly black and white. you could get 10 different plans from each side of the aisle on immigration and that concerns me. I believe that is a large part of why not many solid multi-faceted plans have been proposed. Not sure we could solve it, but this issue would make a great one to have experiment with. ie; 30 Kos members volunteer to start from your proposal and iron out a plan we could get at least 20 of 30 to vote yes on and then submit to every politician. Maybe we could spoon feed them. Just a wild idea. I know I don't mind constructive criticism but it makes me crazy to get blasted on something I spent a lot of time on with no recognition for my efforts. It is usually someone who you look at their profile and no diaries or only a couple. Tons of comments and mostly negative and nothing on profile. Well, long enough comment. will print out now and try to re-read today. TKK

        Honesty with ourselves and others advances change but it is tolerance that keeps us that way. Bill Wilson.

        by TKK on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:39:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  writing Fiction again? (10+ / 0-)

    I'll bet it takes a long time to try to rewrite the history of immigration and labor in the United States.  

    Uh, the difference is in the past was that immigration was legal.  

    And trying to claim it's all "racists" who are the problem completely ignores it was about wages.

    Hear of worker exploitation in the 1800's?  Now did massive waves of immigration help organization labor?

    Hear of child labor, company stores, non-payment, no workman's comp. getting plain killed for going on strike?????  any of that?

    Why do you think the Robber Barons were putting out propaganda and fliers about the US streets being paved with gold?  Because they were recruiting cheap exploitable labor.

    Massive overflow in labor supply was used and is used to BUST labor organization!  It took 100 years for them to really solidify power, partly due to the massive availability of cheap exploitable labor plus zero social safety net or workers rights in the US.   AFTER the US enacted (admittedly flawed) immigration controls that reduced the influx of the labor supply,  Those controls assisted in enabling unions to form because exploiting industrialists were plain running out of workers.  

    That's not all of it, but it certainly was a major element to the story.

    Yet, thanks to Reagan,  once again modern industrialists used illegal labor to union bust started in the 1980's with the Farm workers Union.

    It's a well know union busting strategy, in fact much was formulated by the US Chamber of Commerce lobbyists.

    Once again simply ignoring not only the history of labor and immigration but also labor economics 101.

    You cannot have open borders and magically improve wages.  That puts the race to the bottom on steroids, it completely enables wage repression.

    Trying to spin labor supply, demand, equilibrium, domestic labor markets and employment law to meet some "philosophy" of glorified open borders is simply not based in any reality and in fact your agenda is not progressive for it would hurt US workers.

    http://blog.noslaves.com

    by BobOak on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 09:40:22 PM PST

    •  This diaries agenda is progressive, (9+ / 0-)

      If you feel otherwise maybe you might want to chat with the AFL-CIO, SEIU, or other unions.
      Most ideas mentioned in this diary are the same as what the unions are fighting for.

      •  no not all (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        uscitizenvoter, ITgirl

        I know the AFL-CIO position inside and out and why I know this is not true, nor is Duke affiliated with them.

        http://blog.noslaves.com

        by BobOak on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:33:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  so true (10+ / 0-)

        Responsible Reform of Immigration Laws Must Protect Working Conditions for all Workers in the U.S., AFL-CIO, March 01, 2006, San Diego, CA

        • Uniform enforcement of workplace standards must be a priority.

           (The) exploitation of workers will continue as long, as it makes economic sense to do so, to the detriment of U.S.-born and foreign-born workers alike.  Unfortunately, the lax enforcement of labor and employment laws has given too many unscrupulous employers the economic incentive to recruit undocumented workers...

          The only meaningful way to remove that perverse economic incentive and to equalize the competitive playing field is to ensure that all those who gain the benefit of a worker’s labor, ... abide by all labor and employment laws.  That means that the immigration reform law must provide real and enforceable remedies for labor and employment law violations that are available to all workers, regardless of their immigration status...

        • Reforms must provide a path to permanent residency for the currently undocumented workers who have paid taxes and made positive contributions to their communities.

          Legalization is an important worker protection.  History shows that legalizing this population benefits all workers. ...  Without a legalization program, the economic incentive to hire and exploit the undocumented will remain, to the detriment of U.S. workers who labor in the same industries as the undocumented, because all workers will see their working conditions plummet.

        • We must reverse the trend of allowing employers to turn permanent, full-time year-round jobs into temporary jobs through attempts to broaden the size and scope of guestworker programs.

          ...Guestworker programs are bad public policy and operate to the detriment of workers, in the both the public and private sector, and of working families in the U.S.  The abuses suffered by workers in the first such program, the post World-War II Bracero program, are well documented.  The negative effects of the modern versions of the "guestworker" construct—such as the H1-B and H2-B programs—are all too evident today.  Workers around the country are witnessing the transformation of formerly well-paying, permanent jobs into temporary jobs with little or no benefits, which employers are staffing with vulnerable foreign workers who have no real enforceable rights through the guestworker programs.  These modern programs have had a major and substantial detrimental effect on important sectors of our economy.

          In our view, there is no good reason why any immigrant who comes to this country prepared to work, to pay taxes, and to abide by our laws and rules should be denied what has been offered to immigrants throughout our country’s history, a path to legal citizenship.  To embrace instead the creation of a permanent two-tier workforce, with non-U.S. workers relegated to second-class "guestworker" status, would be repugnant to our traditions and our ideals and disastrous for the living standards of working families.

        • Long-Term Labor Shortages Should be Filled With Workers with Full Rights

          We recognize that our economy may face real labor shortages in the coming years, as the baby boomer generation retires.  Instead of relying on a construct that guarantees the deterioration of working conditions in the U.S., we should focus on a meaningful solution that guarantees full workplace rights for all workers, both foreign-born and native, and also permits employers to hire foreign workers to fill proven labor shortages.  The solution is simple: Congress should revise the permanent employment-based visas system and devote more resources to removing processing delays.  

          Employment-based admissions for permanent visas (commonly known as "green cards") are subject to labor certification provisions...(and Congress has arbitrarily set the number of these visas at 140,000 annually.  That approach should be changed so that the number of visas available responds to actual, demonstrated labor shortages, which will satisfy employers’ needs for workers, and will prevent the creation of a secondary class of workers and residents, because the new foreign workers will have full employment rights and the promise of a permanent future in our democracy.

        • Reform of immigration laws must consider the root causes of migration, and must take into account the global economic policies, as well as U.S. foreign policy that are pushing workers to migrate

          Without rising living standards abroad for workers and the poor, the pressure for illegal immigration will continue.  U.S. foreign policy, as well as trade and globalization policies, must be grounded upon a coherent national economic strategy, as described in An Economic Agenda for Working Families, adopted at the AFL-CIO’s 2005 Convention.

        •  as usual (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          uscitizenvoter, ITgirl, numen

          you ignore

          AFL-CIO policy position

          Criminal penalties should be established to punish employers who recruit undocumented workers from abroad for the purpose of exploiting workers for economic gain

          The United States is a nation of laws. This means that the federal government has the sovereign authority and constitutional responsibility to set and enforce limits on immigration.

          And also clearly ignore the massive testimony about port and border security the AFL-CIO has done before the House Judiciary committee and others.

          Port security especially is a major AFL-CIO issue.

          And this is why you assuredly are not Progressive and most importantly leave out major aspects of the AFL-CIO position which is not your de facto open border spin.

          http://blog.noslaves.com

          by BobOak on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:57:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Duke, (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shpilk, marina, BobOak, uscitizenvoter, numen

          Do you support these?

          Criminal penalties should be established to punish employers who recruit undocumented workers from abroad for the purpose of exploiting workers for economic gain

          The United States is a nation of laws. This means that the federal government has the sovereign authority and constitutional responsibility to set and enforce limits on immigration

          With Scooter Libby, who can tell; but we are suppose to be a nation of laws.  I have no problem with either of these.  In fact, first one sounds like a good addition to our current labor laws.  Second one should be a no brainer.  If everyone on the planet decided to relocate here, it couldn't be done.  

          •  yes (8+ / 0-)

            first one yes

            the second one is the whole point of the conversation...we are trying to figure out what those laws should look like...because the ones we have obviously don't work.

            •  One day, I'm going to get Bob Oak to work (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Alma, BobOak, uscitizenvoter, numen

              with us on this.  It is a labor issue (and a human rights issue) that we should be able to come together on.  Did you see comment about the fed. ? Dirty tricks and obfuscation is all we get.  

              •  in order to work on immigration reform (7+ / 0-)

                one must accept the last point in my conclusions section:

                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.

                But if one believes there should be no immigration whatsoever, that America is full, or that "there is zero evidence that we need more immigration" ...they don't want to reform policy .. they want to kill it.

                You can't work on fixing something if you really don't want it to work in the first place.

                •  i hope that Bob doesn't believe that. (6+ / 0-)

                  I've never heard him say anything like that in earnest. He can get very tense on this subject when he is feeling frustrated, but I think his heart is in the right place.  He shared a link with me that I have been doing my best to circulate.  It is about the education myth and what it is doing to labor (not to mention schools) in the US.  I sent it to Senator Levin.  I also keep feeding links to the State's workforce development board.  We need to get beyond all the propaganda coming from politicians and corporations so we can stop spinning our wheels and fix what is wrong.

                  Well, I'm off to my grandson's hockey game.  Have a good afternoon.  

                  •  April 12, 2007 (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    pHunbalanced, Nightprowlkitty, Dianna

                    "plus you turned around and said we need more immigrants...this is simply not the case from the many displaced, highly qualified American workers and statistics.

                    ...There is zero evidence that we need more immigration in any single labor area in the United States."

                    •  there is (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bdevil89, uscitizenvoter, ITgirl, numen

                      and you are not for "immigration reform" because you will not recognize labor economic realities.  

                      That's not my opinion as already stated, it's evidence from many economists and even the Urban institute.

                      Right now we do not need more immigration, it's quite clear.

                      You do not base your opinions in reality, plus constantly try to co-opt the term Progressive to mean your little open border agenda, which is not progressive by any stretch of the imagination.  Is not endorsed by the House Progressive caucus.

                      http://blog.noslaves.com

                      by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:09:11 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Bob (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Duke1676, Nightprowlkitty

                        I think you prove Duke's point that your arguments are rooted in your desire to totally close the border to immigration, and that you therefore disdain any argument to reform the system. That's cool, at least you own it.

                        But don't accuse Duke of being an advocate for an open border. I don't see one iota of support in Duke's extensive diary for your "open border" shibboleth. Please quit with the strawmen already, at least that one. You are among intelligent folk here.

                        "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

                        by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:16:57 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  he is (4+ / 0-)

                          I've been watching this for a long, long time and I point out the details.  and posting lies about me instead of reading the studies I quote is a key piece of evidence on how this absurd name calling battle is absolutely not mainstream or a true Progressive position.

                          http://blog.noslaves.com

                          by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:28:03 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well Maybe I Spoke Too Soon. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty, immigradvocate

                            You're the one distorting views, when you accuse Duke of "..your little open border agenda".

                            "Open Borders" means a policy where anyone can move into the US at will. Sorta the way it was before 1900. Nothing in Duke's diary speaks in favor of that, and he has never supported that. Indeed, no one supports "open borders", except for disguise trolls setting up straw men.

                            "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

                            by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:04:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  read it and weap (3+ / 0-)

                            I put up direct quotes, links and am pointing specifically to real labor organizations policy differences.  Name call all you want but it will not erase those differences that i point out.

                            http://blog.noslaves.com

                            by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:06:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  C'mon Bob... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty, mariachi mama

                            Give me a quote from Duke's  diary where he advocates an open border. That is, unregulated open access to the USA by foreigners. Otherwise it is dishonest for you to accuse Duke of supporting open borders.

                            "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

                            by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:11:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  just for you (3+ / 0-)

                            here

                            and here

                            ya know it's pretty bad when it's in the same thread and you cannot seem to read them.

                            http://blog.noslaves.com

                            by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:41:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nonsense. (3+ / 0-)

                            The only quote you provide is that Duke favors immigration. That's far from promoting an open border, even if you avoid his extensive plan for regulating the entry of legal immigrants.

                            I'll save you the trouble. Ther's nothing. You're just making it up through bald assertions. And then attacking Duke as anti-worker. You are a troll dude.

                            "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

                            by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:50:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  false (3+ / 0-)

                            you're not reading those comments, they directly quote the AFL-CIO policy positions from the executive council.  but you clearly just are not interested in reading them since you ignore them 2x now and wish to engage in name calling.  What a surprise.

                            http://blog.noslaves.com

                            by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:57:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You know what is false (5+ / 0-)

                            Bob, it is claiming those comments make duke and open border lobbyist. You keep accusing everyone else of lying..you are the liar here.

                          •  at this point (3+ / 0-)

                            I am pointing to very specifics as to why that is.  as I have done in the past.  But ya all are busy trying to get anyone who disagrees with you silenced, you are not interested in discussing actual legislation and policy when these facts are brought to light.

                            http://blog.noslaves.com

                            by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 03:19:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How can you (3+ / 0-)

                            call someone an "open borders lobbyist" who is actually advocating for border security in this very diary?

                            It's just lame.

                            Obviously you're a part of the "deport them all crowd" but just because Duke doesn't advocate for deportation doesn't make him "open borders."

                            This is just stupid. Seriously, if you've got a plan that is workable for solving the problem, then let's hear it. If all you want to do is complain, call other people names and make accusations, don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously.

                          •  i just pointed to why (3+ / 0-)

                            his position is not real border security.  I pointed it out repeatedly as to why it is not.  

                            I object to this being wrapped as "Progressive" because it is not.

                            a workable solution is to fix the social security mismatch identification system and punish severely illegal employers.  Most progressives have this position.  The open border people will tell you why it won't work at all and more importantly object when illegal workers cannot work unauthorized...which is a real chicken/egg problem.

                            That's reality that authorized workers are not going be able to work...because they are unauthorized.

                            http://blog.noslaves.com

                            by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 03:31:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fixing "No Match" (3+ / 0-)

                            is not related to border security. And I'm not exactly sure why you continue to insist it is.

                            Border security and punishing employers are not the same thing. They fix different problems related to immigration entirely.

                            You cannot point to SS No Match and claim to be "securing the border." That's just flat out the most ludicrous assertion I've ever heard in my life.

                            Punishing employers is a way to keep them from hiring undocs, and ultimately a way for those who want to rid the country of certain types of immigrants to do so without having to be honest about wanting to get rid of a certain class of people.

                            Fixing SS No match will do nothing, for example, to stop the potential flow of terrorists who may cross our borders (mostly the northern, not the southern, border) or may come on some kind of a visa and overstay.

                            Please explain to me how fixing the no match in SS will secure our borders? It's bullshit.

                            If you're argument is that undocumented workers depress wages, fine, but that has nothing to do with open borders or border security.

                            YOu want to know how to protect the wages of the American Middle Class?

                            LEGALIZE the Undocs. Period, full stop.

                          •  enforcing employment law (3+ / 0-)

                            is the key to stop the influx which does help border security focus on just the real issue at hand which is the criminal element.  It's the known solution and why it was included in the '86 amnesty.  Unfortunately employers twisted it to use it against any illegal worker who tried to whistleblow on abuses (after the illegal employer recruited them to often union bust, wage repress) or any labor organizers they would use it on.  So, serious reforms are needed but workplace enforcement is still the critical element.

                            http://blog.noslaves.com

                            by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:16:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's pure bullshit (5+ / 0-)

                            Enforcing employment law does not "secure the border" by any stretch of the imagination.

                            And actually, you make my point quite nicely for me. The real issue at hand is the "criminal element" not those who come here to work.

                            LEGALIZE the 12 million and you solve your own problem. The problem with enforcing the employment law without dealing with the 12 million is that it doesn't account for the fact that we rely heavily on those 12 million in our labor force.

                            Enforcing employment law without dealing with the 12 million only solves one problem: it gets rid of a certain class of immigrants; which is really the point isn't it?

                            If you want others to "be honest" about where they stand on the issues, you're going to have to be held to the same standard.

                            You want to send the 12 million home. And that's really the agenda by which you operate and the thing that most underscores everything you believe about immigration policy. Nothing short of "send em home" will satisfy you.

                            And the AMerican public just doesn't agree with you. People want the law enforced, but a majority of Americans (in every poll done on the subject) also support a path to earned citizenship.

                          •  Agreed. (4+ / 0-)

                            I don't know how anyone can say "workplace enforcement" and not mean "deporting undocumented migrants."  If the ICE goes after employers, the workers will be out of jobs at best and deported at worst, unless we first have the means in place to protect them.

                            It's just a euphemism for "deport 12 million folks but call it punishing the employers."

                          •  uh huh (3+ / 0-)

                            look you're not interested in discussing this obviously, just trying to name call.

                            I'm referring to this position in this diary, which has a legalization component and Im referring to what is missing or wrong and why it's not progressive.

                            But you people are sure not interested in that at all, as I've said many times you run around name calling and claiming people have positions either they don't have or understand anything about a controlled immigration policy at all.

                            http://blog.noslaves.com

                            by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:53:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually (5+ / 0-)

                            I've done nothing but discuss policy. All I did was call you out on your obvious agenda.

                            But just for kicks, let's do this right: So, Bob, what is your plan for dealing with the 12 million? Or, more specifically, Bob, do you support the deportation of 12 million people? Do you support the "attrition through enforcement" theory?

                            if you think I'm name calling then let's just set the record straight, Bob. What do you want to do with the 12 million who are here?

                          •  He has no plan (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Duke1676, condoleaser

                            except for rage and making stuff up. He might know about STEM and H-1b, but he is completely ignorant about other immigration issues, and frequently uprates racist posts.

                          •  Nobody (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Estudar

                            wants the 30 million illegal immigrants (let's be honest here, there has to be more than gov't is letting on just like the UK "misunderestimated" their immigration numbers)  to be deported overnight.

                            Fine and jail the employers of illegal immigrants, cut off the demand, and the illegal immigrants will have to leave, and they can take their families as well back with them.  Family is more important than country.  I want the deportation done as humanely possible, but the caveat is if the illegal immigrants won't come out voluntarily and until going after the employers is in full swing,  there will be raids of the workplace to catch them and deport them.

                            Deportation as humanely as possible.  It will not happen overnight, but will take several years to occur much like the illegal immigration took years to accumulate.  It will take at least 5 years to get rid of all of the illegal immigrants.  In that time hopefully we will repeal all the Free trade pacts we have signed or at least reformed them.  

                            Humane Deportation is what I advocate over several years.

                          •  What utter nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

                            You don't just get to throw out numbers (30 million) like confetti with no back-up to prove it.

                            You have gone on and on about this.  Your plan is not just to halt undocumented migrants but all immigration in the name of "population control."

                            I guess it's all right that the US has used up far more than its fair share of the world's resources.  Now we're in trouble globally, we should just shut our doors and let folks starve now that we've raped their environments.

                            Bleh.

                            No.  We.  Can't.

                          •  The only one ... (3+ / 0-)

                            .. on this entire thread who is name-calling is you.  I am sick and tired of this.  I am reporting you to the admins.  Your behavior here has been despicable.

                            Don't tell me what I am or am not interested in.  Your behavior speaks for itself for anyone here to see.  I have put up with it so as not to deflect attention from this very important issue, but you have gone too far.

                            I'll let the admins. sort this one out.

                          •  Which does not prevent future (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BobOak, uscitizenvoter

                            YOu want to know how to protect the wages of the American Middle Class?

                            LEGALIZE the Undocs. Period, full stop.

                            Ilegal immigration. Period, full stop.

                            If it did we would not be having this conversion because we have had five amnesties since 1986, one with IRCA and four with 245(i).

                            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                            by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:26:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're right (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Duke1676, Nightprowlkitty

                            legalization doesn't do anything to stop future flow. I never said it did.

                            what I said was that employer enforcement does not protect the border. That's why we need a COMPREHENSIVE approach, because there are many aspects of the problem that need attention:

                            1. Securing the border
                            1. Dealing with future flow
                            1. protecting American workers
                            1. Dealing with the 12 million; who we actually need in the economy.

                            Any attempt at reforming the system has to deal with all of the aspects or you're simply putting a band-aid on a tiny little part of the much broader problem.

                            Enforcement-only just doesn't get the job done. And saying it does (or writing it a bunch of times in a diary) doesn't make it so.

                            You're just wrong on this. And you're not wrong about enforcement being important, you're just wrong that it's the only fix needed. You've got to deal with all of it, and the enforcement is only one small portion.

                          •  Bob's Not Wrong If... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Duke1676, mariachi mama

                            ...as you aptly pointed out, his object is to deport 12 million people. How he has been trying to pistol-whip Duke in his own diary with transparently bogus claims, point him out as a common right wing troll -- throwing out union labels and worker concern as cover.

                            "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

                            by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:00:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm pretty sure (0+ / 0-)

                            I was replying to someone other than bob. But maybe I replied to the wrong post.

                          •  I never said anything about 'Enforcement-only' (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BobOak, uscitizenvoter

                            What I am talking about is 'no-enforcment'.

                            The Democratic Party Does Not Support Interior And Worksite Enforcment.

                            Duke Does Not Support Interior And Employer Enforcment.

                            Examine the line 'legalize the 12 million and secure the borders'. Where in that line do you read 'and provide for strong worksite and interior enforcement'?

                            I am contending that the line 'and provide for strong worksite and interior enforcement' is not there on purpose.

                            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                            by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:02:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            Duke advocated in this very diary for enforcing strict employment and labor laws, which for the record, includes whether or not one employs undocumented workers.

                            Duke most definitely supports workplace and interior enforcement.

                            Again, legalize the 12 million, secure the borders, increase legal immigration AND enforce the laws and you'll solve the problem.

                            That's basically the platform of almost every Democrat....how can you claim the Democratic Party doesn't support enforcement.

                            Give me one example of where the Democratic Party does not support enforcement. What the Democrats have opposed (with a few exceptions) is "enforcement-only," don't make the mistake of confusing the two.

                            Just because Democrats come out against enforcement-only policies doesn't mean they don't support enforcement of the laws, the most certainly do. What they don't support is enforcement absent of a more comprehensive plan to fix the problem.

                            If you support any of the current plans to "crackdown on employers" absent any plan to fix the broader problem than you are most certainly advocating enforcement-only.

                            And the fact that you seem to oppose the Democratic position on this (which does include enforcement) is what led me to conclude that you support an enforcement-only approach.

                            If that's not the case, my apologies, but if you support a comprehensive approach that includes enforcement (rather than just enforcement only) than I fail to see what your problem is with the Democratic position on this.

                          •  From This (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BobOak

                            <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                            by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:07:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not understanding what that proves (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Duke1676, Nightprowlkitty, wa ma

                            other than that he didn't answer you. Probably because the answer is so obviously in the diary itself.

                            And you've actually dodged everything I said above. Let's just assume that what you are alleging is correct, that Duke doesn't support enforcement (which he does seem to support, but whatever). What does that have to do with the Democratic Party (which is what you claimed your whole gripe was about)?

                            I've layed it out for you very clearly above, that the Democrats do in fact support enforcement, and you've just chosen to completley ignore it.

                            Please explain to me why it is that advocating enforcement as a part of a larger comprehensive package is not support of enforcement?

                            The only person who could make such a claim is someone who supported an enforcement-only approach; which you claim is not the case.

                            So, wtf? What exactly is your problem? If you're not advocating for enforcement-only, what exactly is your problem with a plan that would enforce the law, secure the borders, legalize the 12 million and increase legal immigration flows?

                            I know, I know, you're about to give your standard line which usually amounts to something like "because they won't really enforce the laws."

                            Well, if your only complaint is that no matter what solution gets offered up it's not good enough because they won't really follow through on it, then there really is no way to come up with something good enough is there?

                            No offense, but your position seems to be "the Democrats are bad and anything they propose is doomed to fail because they're not really serious and only Republicans have the right answers on this."

                            If that's the case, fine, but I'm not sure why anyone should waste their time trying to convince you of anything. You've obviously made up your mind that the GOP are your heroes when it comes to immigration. But at least be honest about the game you're playing.

                          •  No sense, as usual (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Duke1676

                            Where's the beef, bob?

                        •  I think neither of them is guilty of either (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Hens Teeth

                          extreme.  They really have a common goal.  I just wish they could see it.

                          •  not so (3+ / 0-)

                            that's the issue and I especially find it odious that every single attempt at enforcement of employment law or more importantly the Americans first basic philosophy is subverted.  

                            http://blog.noslaves.com

                            by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 03:26:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree with America first. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BobOak

                            You agree with America first.  Even the King of Liberals, Thom Hartmann, agrees with America first.  I even hear Duke saying he agrees with America first.  There are immigrants who are already here, many who have become citizens and/or are Mexican since that is the border we always focus on, that will benefit from an America first policy.  I think Duke has said that.  Some times it is simply mis-communication that hi-jacks a whole diary or philosophy.  I wrote a diary on the fact that Obama and Clinton are free traders,  Most of the diary turned into a debate on what is good trade and what is bad trade and what impact, if any, does trade even have on yadda, yadda ya.  Somebody even tried to turn it into a debate on autos.  Thank god that one went nowhere.  Shit happens.  We just need to listen, not get too defensive, and be confident in our support of America first.  This use to be a generous and benevolent nation, until f*ucking Reagan.  

                      •  Worker Rights (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        mariachi mama

                        Bob, without having read any of your diaries, it appears your concern with open immigration (as policy or de facto) is that it floods the labor market and allows big employers to bypass unions.  

                        I don't think it's a winning strategy for those of us who support workers' rights to fair compensation and workplace standards to put the hammer on employers by attempting to keep the labor supply artificially low, which is what borders and immigration quotas are - an artificial and arbitrary impediment to labor supply filling  demand.  Is the progressive labor movement so pessimistic that they have to resort to "us vs. them" tactics?  That's not my idea of progressive.

                        The reality is that when the US commits itself to workers rights by meaningful and meaningfully enforced legislation that applies to all workers without regard to their residency status, then an equilibrium can be reached that does not exploit anyone.  The current guest worker program allows employers to exploit participants in various ways.  If I were a Latin American desperate for work, and if I were aware of the realities of the US guest worker program, I'd choose to take my chances and cross over illegally.  At least then I could quit my job if the employer didn't pay me.

                        The point is, don't stop employers from hiring illegal immigrants, stop employers from exploiting workers.  If the race to the bottom is suspended by legislation that insists upon fair wages and conditions for any worker in this country the employer, will then seek out the best worker rather than the cheapest one, or the one that is most easily intimidated.

                    •  He is talking about H-1b. Please read the link (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BobOak, Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter, numen

                      I gave you.  If they keep outsourcing/insourcing the entry level jobs in science and math, our grads will never develop the experience they need to fill the middle level jobs that industry claims they can't fill.  Immigration is important and necessary, but you know it is being used to implode the middle class.  

                  •  he distorts (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    uscitizenvoter, ITgirl

                    just like this diary distorts.  Of course I did not say that, I said more as in increases, which he claims are "needed".  Again, he will not recognize economists or labor economic reality on this issue, he really is open border, but tries to spin it so it seems not.  It took me a while because he writes such ridiculous volumes to see it.  

                    There are people on here who literally want no immigration policy at all and he's one of them and that's what his positions amount to.

                    It's not Progressive by any stretch, although his finally, finally mentioning of global economics, trade policy being a root cause is a new one.  But a token phrase when he never posts one trade story or fact isn't obviously moving to true Progressive economic reforms.

                    Considering we just had another NAFTA style trade deal pass through congress (Peru) and hardly a diary, of course not a front page anything on that...
                    they basically ignore the corporate global economic agenda.

                    http://blog.noslaves.com

                    by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:25:50 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you wouldn't know the truth if it hit you in face (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Nightprowlkitty, Dianna

                      although his finally, finally mentioning of global economics, trade policy being a root cause is a new one.

                      yeah "finally" ....like this from May of 2006:

                      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.....

                      (We need to) 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.

                      http://www.dailykos.com/...

                      yeah Bob...I've been working on this for a couple of years now....and there's a record of what I've said and believe  ...so you can just stop now, and go back to your troll hole.

                •  that's a bold faced lie (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  uscitizenvoter

                  I have never said anything like you try to distort.

                  You, in fact are the one trying to repress reforms...
                  as noted by spamming a diary on Bernie Sanders and a scholarship fund for super smart kids as well as call any economic study on skilled labor "racist" so people do not read the actual studies.

                  You can get your verbage front paged but that will never stop the economic realities you try to repress and ignore.

                  http://blog.noslaves.com

                  by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:39:43 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  dkmich (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                burrow owl, uscitizenvoter, numen

                Duke misrepresents labor.   Why would I work with someone so intent on hurting US labor?

                It's not the same thing.  These people are not focused in on labor issues, they are focused in on something else.  

                If you want to work with anyone, work with organized labor activists.  They are on these boards.

                They avoid these threads because they get name called, TRed.

                http://blog.noslaves.com

                by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:11:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Bob tries to wrap himself in the ALF/Cio flag (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mariachi mama

          but they are not anti undocumented, although I'm sure he wish they were.

      •  The "leadership" of many unions are out of touch (8+ / 0-)

        Much of the union leadership is out of touch with their members, who rightly feel threatened by the influx of illegal immigrants.  Racism has nothing to do with it, it's the loss of blue collar jobs!

        Many of these folks, often the blue collar children or grandchildren of legal immigrants, have seen their jobs disappear as their employers' competitors hire illegal workers who will do their job not as well as they do, but for a quarter to a third of their (often) union wages.  This has been especially hard on construction craft workers in trades such as tilecutting, plastering, roofing, and painting.

        Any solution that will be acceptable to such blue collar voters must include enforceable employer sanctions.  These workers know that Federal law already makes it illegal for employers to hire undocumented workers, and they are demanding that the Federal government enforce the law!  How would you feel if you couldn't find work because your formerly union company was now hiring illegal non-union workers in order to stay in business, and your union (or worse yet, another union) was trying to recruit those workers for your union?

        It's not all just Lou Dobbs spouting off, folks.  Dobbs knows that the blue collar middle class workers in this country are sick and tired of seeing their jobs disappear, whether it's manufacturing jobs going overseas, or formerly well paying trades jobs going to scab companies hiring undocumented folks.

        It wouldn't be necessary to seal the border if the government did what they promised to do when illegals were granted amnesty back in the 80s --- enforce sanctions against employers.  

        All they need to do is adopt a secure form of green card that is close to impossible to counterfeit, provide an inexpensive Internet/phone connectible scanner that any employer can use, require employers to use it, and then enforce sanctions on employers with illegal employees.

        And please don't use that sorry excuse of too many errors in the database; once such a system actually goes into effect, most of those errors will be resolved within a few months.

        Once the average wage in the US (including agricultural laborers, janitors, and other service personnel) has returned to a living wage level, then we should think about a guest worker program, but not until.

        And as far as legal immigration is concerned, I'm one of the folks who went back to school to get a computer science degree, only to find employers replacing high wage American programmers with cheap H1B programmers back in the early 90s.  We need to kill the H1B program until wages are high enough, and employers can prove not that they can't find employees at the abysmal pay they offer now, but that they can't find employees at all.

        Some folks will accuse me of not being "progressive", which is far from the truth.  I don't think that any proposal that will continue to allow illegal workers to depress wages for US citizens and legal immigrants is progressive --- instead it just reinforces the status quo, which is the driving of wages lower and lower.  The way to stop that race to the bottom is to keep employers from having the ability to undercut the wages of legal workers!

        If we want to be progressive, we need to push foreign governments to have policies that encourage the creation of living wage jobs and small businesses in their countries, and we need to discourage their dependence on remittances from their citizens working illegally in the US.

        "Everybody wants to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die" --- Albert King

        by HarpboyAK on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:54:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you mean like this? (8+ / 0-)

          "If we want to be progressive, we need to push foreign governments to have policies that encourage the creation of living wage jobs and small businesses in their countries, and we need to discourage their dependence on remittances from their citizens working illegally in the US"

          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.

          (we must) 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.

          BTW: it helps to actually read the diary before commenting on it

          •  like this? (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bdevil89, rf7777, uscitizenvoter, ITgirl, numen

            as usual, buried within the verbose nothingness copied from legitimate labor groups we get:

            1. We need immigration

            But, in reality, that of course is not the labor position or assumption.

            AFL-CIO congressional testimony

            We propose that the number be
            adjusted to reflect real employer needs for long-term labor shortages. Employers should
            be required to test the labor market by first offering jobs to workers who are already in
            the United States at wages that are attractive to U.S. workers
            . If there are no workers
            inside the United States available to fill the job, then the employer should be able to hire
            a foreign worker and sponsor him or her for a green card.

            Q.E.D. and by the way another one of your misquoted heros, the Urban institute just released a major study which proves not only are Americans excelled in math and science ...there is no need for more immigration which you continually try to claim with this spin that is de facto open border.

            http://blog.noslaves.com

            by BobOak on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 11:18:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  or probably my favorite (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            burrow owl, uscitizenvoter, numen

            and since probably no one could possibly read so much tower of babel "policy" to obscure the real agenda...

            let's examine your "border security" which is to not have any.  What is a legal port for all "immigrants" that all "immigrants" (read illegal, unauthorized) can enter first and then, after that ..well, work on that issue.  So, just make it legal to cross the border and declare unauthorized entry "legal" and after that..oh that's when we will "secure the border"

            That is really insidious and very obviously open border.

            That is 100% open border and would never stop the influx or illegal immigration.  Not until the US economy and labor conditions match the worst 3rd world glorified slave market.

            Which is your real agenda which is not progressive and also not the AFL-CIO position.

            As I've said many times this insanity of open borders will guarantee that the US economy will turn into 3rd world status.  and it's happening as I type if any of these open border people even bothered to crack an economics text and even check the value of the dollar against world currencies.

            http://blog.noslaves.com

            by BobOak on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 11:27:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bob ... (0+ / 0-)

              By your theory (which I agree with, in theory), migrant workers could not be brought into the U.S. by farms until the wage for picking their crops is high enough that American workers will accept the job. I would gladly pick crops for $20-$30 an hour for a 4-6 week period (I'm thinking apples).

              Trying to close the U.S.-Mexico border, aside from being obscenely expensive and destructive to the entire culture of the southwestern U.S., and not addressing the issue of obscenely low U.S. wages for farm work, would cause more and more deaths of people trying to get into the U.S.

              Some might not care about these peoples' lives, but I do, and their lives form the basis of my concern regarding this.

              Cheers.

              •  10 bucks (5+ / 0-)

                Before all of this we all worked the fields in summer jobs and they often were the highest paying job you could get.

                ya know, claiming that people will die if we do not enable more illegal immigration and illegal workers is really nonsense.  There is one main thing that will stop this and it's been known for a very long time and that is to punish employers of illegal workers.  If there is no way to survive economically, no financial incentive, illegal immigration would stop.  But even if it doesn't one doesn't have to equate death with more border agents.  I frankly think less will die because they will be found since there would be more patrols, fences, cameras and people to find them.

                As far as environmental issues, I'll leave that opinion to the Sierra club.  There are two schools, one is the damage caused by illegal immigration which is well documented and then some sort of absurdity of building a massive fence where it's environmentally sensitive or stupid w.r.t. environmental issues
                I think that's the D AZ governor's position "some" fencing, not an absolute.

                http://blog.noslaves.com

                by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:31:28 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  About Agricultural (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Duke1676, Nightprowlkitty, LynneK

                  For a lot of reasons, Americans who could or would pick crops at $10 an hour have long ago gone to the cities and suburbs, even. A poor person on the South Side of Chicago cannot afford to even consider moving say, to rural Colorado to pick grapes or tomatoes. The cost of the move would far exceed whatever wages they could earn. That's one of the problems right there. The native poor live hundreds of miles away from the farm. Considering racial and cultural attitudes, few would even want to try even if they could afford the trip. Someone coming up from Mexico or Guatemala as a seasonal worker (after our reform) would be less burdened with that issue-they could go home after growing season is over, and the money they earn would be more than enough to live well during the cold season in a place where the standard of living is far cheaper.

                  A Crushie for Democracy There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and fools.

                  by CarolDuhart on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:34:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ag (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    uscitizenvoter, ITgirl, numen

                    This actually isn't my area, I'm focused in on professional workers, so I'll take what organized labor has to say about AG jobs to be valid.  But they sure are not endorsing guest worker Visas and there are now horror stories of glorified slave labor.  I think one can seriously reform these temp work programs at minimum,  and have temporary workers for AG but the problem is getting any reforms through.  

                    That way if there really is a labor shortage, they have a method to obtain workers.  The question is, is there really a worker shortage?

                    For example, we have bills introduced in congress for reforms with professional workers, endorsed by the AFL-CIO and so forth and we cannot even get reps to co-sponsor them.  That's how bad it is in terms of getting legislation for workers.  

                    BTW:  the bills we want passed are:

                    S.1035 : H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 2007 (Durbin-Grassley)

                    H.R.2538 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide greater protections to domestic and foreign workers under the H-1B nonimmigrant worker program. (Pascrell)

                    H.R.2504 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the admission of L-1 intra-company transferee nonimmigrants. (DeLauro)

                    H.R.548 : To establish a Congressional Trade Office (DeFazio)

                    http://blog.noslaves.com

                    by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 09:47:31 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  But the issue isn't farm workers (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BobOak, uscitizenvoter

                    It's every other job we have in this country.  Most of them are not very hard to learn. That's the point of this argument.  

                    There will come a day when GM,Ford and Chrysler move all of there car production to China or India.  Mexican people aren't dumb and I think that has to be remembered. One of the biggest issues dealing with immigration is that "they" are inferior to us. Well Chinese and Malaysian people already make the Dell computer on your desk.  I would imagine a HS student in India can kick our kids butt any day in math and science.

                    We have to look at this issue from the top down. Making all of these illegal immigrants legal isn't going to help do anything. We need real politicians that stand up for American workers. That support a real education system and lobby everyday to improve America.

                    I saw a post here the other day that discussed the lack of workers in the Army Corp of Engineers. Then it linked to their current project (Reclaiming wetlands in Iraq). That just shows a complete disregard of the populus that these folks represent.

                    Once citizens are employed than we can worry about everyone else. Lack of employment leads to every social issue effecting us in this country(Jobs,Crime,Drugs,Money,Hunger,etc.....)

                    •  Many GM products are made (4+ / 0-)

                      NORTH of our border, in Canada. Why? Universal healthcare.

                      •  Well I think everyone here agrees we need (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BobOak, Hens Teeth, uscitizenvoter

                        Universal healthcare.  Even this system of healthcare would work if the government went after these crazy insurance companies. Allowing the Blue Cross companies to go from non-profit to for profit, publically traded greed factories.

                      •  Canadian people still make a good wage in what (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        BobOak, uscitizenvoter

                        was a very expensive country to live in.  The worker in Asia making your computer probably can't afford to buy one.  Or in reverse the workers in India have stopped working in Call Centers because they have the knowhow to work in better companies.

                        There are so many issues that have to be addressed before opening the floodgates it's not even funny.

                        Education of our kids,jobs, healthcare, retirement issues, the cost of higher education and what that higher cost will even get you.

                        There are still many countries where good students can go to college or trade schools for free. Not for half price, but for free

                        •  Canada (4+ / 0-)

                          workers are now talking about this as well...the Loonie (Canadian dollar) used to be 50% of a US dollar and now it's above in value of a US dollar.  Last quote I believe was about $1.20.

                          That means corporations will be looking to heavily labor arbitrage that economy through wage repression because it just got way more expensive to manufacture in Canada.  Fortunately the Canadians are a little more socialist and have a lot more worker protections and labor influence, like the EU as well.

                          http://blog.noslaves.com

                          by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:36:38 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Chrysler has a plant in Mexico (0+ / 0-)

                        SOUTH of the border. My Dodge truck was made in Mexico (11th in the world for automotive production). Why?? Cheaper Labor!! Cheaper costs all around, no medical, no union, no nothing, just workers putting things together while Chrysler tries to recover profits.

                        What about VW and Brazil? 9th in the world for vehicle production.

                    •  They can't (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BobOak, uscitizenvoter, numen

                      We need real politicians that stand up for American workers

                      Given the positions which they have taken, the best you are going to get from many of them is that they are "Helping America's Workers.

                      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                      by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:45:47 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  I think many in the SW would disagree with you. (4+ / 0-)

                Trying to close the U.S.-Mexico border, aside from being obscenely expensive and destructive to the entire culture of the southwestern U.S...

                And please, don't put their disagreement into the dirt by demonizing them.

                •  actually many in the SW agree completely (6+ / 0-)

                  thats why we're suing Chertoff over his attempts to destroy one of our most important riparian areas the San Pedro River valley.

                  Fencing the open desert will only destroy migration routes for animals and further the environmental destruction caused by the BP and the migrants.

                  The desert Southwest is a fragile and varied ecosystem that can not take the abuse.

                  "every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" Oscar Wilde

                  by buddabelly on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:25:26 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Question for Buddabelly (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BobOak

                    Are you a vegan?

                  •  Yet it can take the abuse (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BobOak

                    The desert Southwest is a fragile and varied ecosystem that can not take the abuse.

                    Of 25 million tons of trash and growing.

                    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                    by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:17:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no it can't but a border fence will make no (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Duke1676, mariachi mama, christine20

                      difference in the situation. if a job is available the migration will continue.

                      All a fence will do is line a bunch of pockets and look good on the 6 o'clock news.

                      I live with the destruction every day, my truck is full of trash from the desert now.

                      Comprehensive plans have a much better chance of stopping the damage, rather than a completely unworkable current situation and a illusory fix of a fence.

                      "every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" Oscar Wilde

                      by buddabelly on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 10:27:36 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  Same Old Same Old... (5+ / 0-)

      ...tired right wing tactic of pitting workers against workers.

      Defending exploited immigrant workers gets ideologically ju-jitsued into exploiting native workers.

      "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

      by chuco35 on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:32:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bob, please work with us here. (8+ / 0-)

      I didn't see a word about racist as a rationale. It was an aside, for some.  Instead of fighting with Duke, add your pieces in to the story.  I'm sure they fit in with this like pieces in a puzzle.  In fact, I have another piece of the labor puzzle.  

      When Reagan started beating the drums against welfare babies and their queen mothers, it had nothing to do with them getting cash welfare assistance at all.  That was the bogey man reason given to divert everyone's attention from the real reasons and to get the people to turn into a mob against them.    

      During this period (Reagan - Willie) I had a US labor fed come visit our public job training center. He informed me during conversation that the real reason for welfare reform was the hot job market.  Corporations needed more low-skilled, low-wage people for their jobs; and viola, all those welfare people were it.  So rev up your engines and start the demonization process.  "Welfare Queens in Cadilacs"  Why I am so pissed at corporate Clinton? Beating up on poor babies while protecting corporate welfare and gift wrapping NAFTA and Welfare Reform for his corporate masters.  

      Way back then, the Feds also kept coming through Michigan and telling us to forget manufacturing.  They knew way back then that they intended to give it away.  First, they targeted blue collar; and said son, "computers".  OK, so we are going to upgrade jobs in the US.  BS, another slight of hand to keep our eyes off the ball.  Now, computers are gone.  In fact all entry level science and math jobs are insourced and/or outsourced, leaving our grads nowhere to gain the experience they need to fill the mid and high level jobs that are here.  Bob Oak could add a lot to this.  

      Corporations labor needs are the same reason, we can no longer earn a living with one person staying at home to keep the hearth fires burning.   They needed the labor, and the pattern of replacing high wage jobs with low wage workers starts here with women.  

      Immigration, welfare reform, two wage earners to make ends meet, insourcing/outsourcing and free trade are all pieces of the labor puzzle.  It would be nice, if you would work with us to fit yours into the picture.  I know you have valuable contributions to make.

    •  The undocumented workers are victims, they are (7+ / 0-)

      not criminals. The real criminals are those who break the law by hiring them. Period.

      Without an exploitable labor pool of underpaid people too afraid to stand for their own rights, businesses will be forced to pay real wages to Americans and documented workers. There are laws already on the books Federally [IRS] as well as most States.

      The problem is that businesses control government in this country more so today than ever before, and selective enforcement means that we have a whole class of slave workers from Estonia, Philippines, Mexico, El Salvador, China, Ireland ..

      It's wrong to build an economy on slave labor.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:44:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent Diary Duke. (8+ / 0-)

    You've provided solid factual underpinnings for making sense of this issue. Even the trolls we're used to are (mostly) lying low. We just need to keep churning away at getting this ship to turn.

    "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

    by chuco35 on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:37:54 PM PST

  •  Your lead question answers itself. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alma, Fredly

    Q: "Why today do we find it so hard to absorb these new immigrants?

    A: Bigotry and scapegoating. Nothing has changed.

    Q: 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?"

    A: They are NOT putting any stresses on our society. They are doing work that very few Americans are willing to do.

    They only "stress" is artificial and induced by bigots and Republican political opportunists.

    •  not quite (10+ / 0-)

      "A: They are NOT putting any stresses on our society. They are doing work that very few Americans are willing to do."

      These people, be they Filipino, Mexican, Irish, Eastern European are being underpaid to do jobs that Americans refuse to do for that artificially low wage. The real issue isn't bigotry, it's greed.

      Bigotry is there, you are correct, bigotry is part of the equation, but that's more a side effect of the large numbers of Latinos which are easily discriminated against. Bigotry is not the motivator that drives the economic aspect; greed, and the knowledge that one can break current laws with impunity and get away with it, is.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:36:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Don't Think It's So Clear... (0+ / 0-)

        ...that it's just a matter of wages. I am not so certain that there are sufficient American workers, at any wage, for example, to make a career of working, on a non-permanent basis, picking cotton in South Texas or tarring roofs in Arizona, all in 112 degree weather, while bouncing from state to state following the crops and the construction industry.

        It ain't exactly the type of work to fight over, and certainly not one to hold up as a prize for American workers that must be defended at any cost.

        "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

        by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:18:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's not just 112 degree cotton picking (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alden

          It's being nannies, cooks, sheetrock hangers, road construction workers, produce pickers in more favorable climates.

          You are basing your whole argument on a very narrow segment of these jobs.

          Yes, it is simply a matter of greed, by those who can get away with it. Without the artificially low wages attracting the greedy to break the law, the primary engine that attracts undocumented workers in the first place disappears, because they won't be able to find work.

          Reversing this trend is easy to do, by simply enforcing the laws already on the books. the trick will be do so and cause the least amount of suffering for those already here. There has to be some sort of accelerated amensty/green cards as well as legalization for those who wish to stay.

          But they have to be treated as equals, not as slaves.

          "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
          If you want to go far, go together.
          We have to go far, quickly."

          by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 06:20:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  You provide no evidence for this assertion: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fredly

    "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."

    --

    What 'stresses' do immigrants put on society?

    Some evidence would be helpful.

    Do you eat lettuce ?

    How do you think it gets from the field to your mouth ?

    Does that stress you out ?

    •  good question (10+ / 0-)

      and I tried to be very precise in the wording of that phrase.

      "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."

      The thinking behind this being that as the government continues to cut needed programs and funding for things like education, it is lower income workers who are most directly effected and forced to compete for the ever dwindling resource pool. Many of the studies done on the state and local level about the cost/benefits of increased immigration, while universally showing a net positive gain, also do point out that in certain areas such as education there are increased costs. While under normal conditions these increased cost should easily be absorb, given the current climate of continual cuts for basic services, these costs add just enough stress to become noticeable. Hence my choice of wording in that phrase that they "highlight the problems" by adding stress.

    •  No But I Live Under a Roof (5+ / 0-)

      and the roofs here next to the Canadian border, are all built by immigrants.

      I am 100% certain that construction is not a job that Americans won't do.

      And it used to pay a lot better than lettuce picking.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:57:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Duke's Diary Provides A Solution. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nightprowlkitty

        It's a comprehensive solution which deals with the people building your roof. (I take it you don't have a problem with them as workers besides their legal status.)

        "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

        by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:42:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  There is a problem -- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BobOak, Hens Teeth

      -- with any culture that is willing to choose cheap salad over living wages.

      I can survive perfectly well without lettuce, just as I could survive perfectly well without Nike shoes sewn with child labor.

  •  Prove immigrants "added" any stress ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike Erwin

    The stressors you accurately illustrate have nothing to do with dirt poor Mexicans. The stressors are all created by rich, white capitalists and their corporations.

    You are buying into the bigot framework, even as you try to refute it.

    The problems of regular working people (I make $10,000 a year) have nothing to do with immigrants and all to do with millionaires and billionaires.

    Immigration is a shill. It came from nowhere. It was hatched by Repubs. in 2002-2003. Now we are robotically "discusssing it" as if it were an "issue."

    [golf clap]

    What other Republican memes can we be parasitized into discussing?

    Pathetic.

    •  That Was His Point, Pometacom... (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rick, Christin, SadTexan, BobOak, LynneK, echatwa

      Immigration is a "shill?" Immigrants have come to this country in waves for centuries, right? It wasn't "hatched," by Republicans, but the issue has been exploited by Republicans. In truth, the GOP was way out ahead of Democrats on this issue years ago when they saw it as another wedge issue they could use. Because, of course, they don't really care about the impact that immigration is having on border states.

      But, I know the impact it's having. I've lived in border states, and in Florida. It has a huge effect on the spending for education, hospital care, emergency room care, and social safety nets for working class Americans, in addition to putting DOWNWARD pressure on pay for those working class Americans--which by the way, include hispanics who are legal immigrants and naturalized citizens.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H.L. Mencken

      by SignalSuzie on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:13:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well Since You're Using Anecdotes. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nightprowlkitty

        I've lived on the Texas border for 60 years, in a community that's 98% Mexican-American, a huge chunk as illegal as the Kentuckians and Tennesseans who infiltrated into Texas in the 1830's and formed the Republic of Texas, long after my Spanish ancestors had settled here.

        There has not been any greater impact by undocumented residents in my urban community of almost 300,000 residents to constitute a crisis. Our medical care is impacted much more now by the control of the industry by for-profit hospitals and insurance carriers, our education by lack of federal and state support, and our safety net by the slashing of meaningful programs by the Rs -- and not by the impact of immigrants.

        This Immigration Crisis, like the Social Security Crisis, and the WMD crisis, and the Drug Crisis, and the Marriage Crisis, and the Gay Lifestyle Crisis, is a right wing invention. What they all have as a common denominator is hate. And that's why the pointy-heads who attack immigrants cause so much pain.

        Sure the GOP is was way ahead of the Ds on immigration. We don't engineer and manufacture "crisis".

        "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

        by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:37:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Undocumented workers have directly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BobOak

      affected our economy since at least the 1960s. Over 500,000 undocumented Irish workers are in this country, right now.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:29:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Have Lost Work to Undocumented Irish Workers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BobOak, uscitizenvoter

        Ah but being part Irish myself, I'm racist for opposing their undocumented immigration.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:58:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  who are all these undocumented irish workers? (0+ / 0-)

          for real..i've never heard of this but am hearing a lot about it i the past few days.
          are things that bad over in Ireland?

          "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

          by Christin on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:25:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry, typo (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Christin

            50,000 .. not 500,000 .. here's an article about it ..

            http://www.newamerica.net/...

            My point is there's more than "just Mexicans" in the labor mix.

            http://www.talkleft.com/...

            Mongolia? Czech Repulic?  .. I have seen stories as well about extensive undocumented workers from Eastern EU - which is to be expected, of course due to economic pressures.

            "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
            If you want to go far, go together.
            We have to go far, quickly."

            by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:36:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  thanks,,,,, (0+ / 0-)

              sorry for my laziness.
              i could have just googled it too,
              but sometimes people have better links than the genreral ones that come up,

              "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

              by Christin on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:58:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Much More Than This. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nightprowlkitty

              The illegal Irish are all over the place. They slip in easily as tourists since they're white. A simple plane ticket and Sean's an American by overstaying. I see them control the construction industry in the SF Bay Area, kicking out real Americans from these jobs. Not to mention Southie in Boston. They hide in the shadows of Irish bars and don't show in the census. That's why the article underestimates their numbers in the US. But they're here. Ever notice how the Irish bars run soccer (that's fucking right-soccer!) games (I refuse to use the Irish "matches") on their TVs (I refuse to use the Irish "Tellies"),

              We can't control the border unless we stop this Irish invasion. First kick out the Irish if they can't prove they're Americans. It's not fair to those Mexicans who waited in line for 18 years and came in legally. Then stop all flights from Ireland, and above all don't let any Irish in for any reason -- after all they've been overstaying their visas in droves.

              Dear Lord, we'll take the Mexicans and their cousins from down south, but please not the Irish!

              <snark>  

              "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

              by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:52:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  50,000 not 500,000 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BobOak, uscitizenvoter

        but the point remains .. it's not just Latinos. The motivations for workers to come here as undocumented from different countries is no doubt a bit different as well.

        "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
        If you want to go far, go together.
        We have to go far, quickly."

        by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:37:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That is quite easy for one to say (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bdevil89, BobOak, uscitizenvoter

      Immigration is a shill. It came from nowhere. It was hatched by Repubs. in 2002-2003.

      If one has been living in Maine with their fucking head buried in the sand for the past twenty years.

      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:19:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well Bato (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nightprowlkitty

        I've been living on the Texas border and keeping my head over the monte and can tell you that the "Immigration Crisis" is an R copyrighted shill.

        "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

        by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:08:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've been living in Southern California (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BobOak, uscitizenvoter

          And I disagree with you.

          <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

          by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:37:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe It's An Attitude Thing? (0+ / 0-)

            Could it be that we don't feel this impact, and aren't as alarmed, as people in San Diego and La Joya because the Texas border is 98% Mexican-American, while the California border is pretty white. Or that our leaders on the Texas border are Mexican American for the most part, while those in your neck of the woods not so much.

            Could it be primarily a racial perception? This immigration crisis. Could that be why the Rs are stoking it so furiously?

            "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

            by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 03:41:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It has more (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mariachi mama, wa ma

              to do with whether you live in a part of the country where the R's are going out of their way to alarm people for political gain.

              Which is exactly what goes on in Southern California particularly in the R areas, like San Diego.

              You can see the same thing in play in all kinds of states with heavy immigration. Anywhere the R's are pumping this issue for political gain the public is in "outrage" over "the crisis." To the contrary, in areas with similar numbers of illegal immigration where the politicians aren't playing the fear card...no such crisis.

    •  This is exactly the kind of rhetoric we no longer (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rick, SusanG, Duke1676, BobOak, Hens Teeth, echatwa

      need.
      Please stop.
      No more calling fellow Democrats and Kossaks bigots or implying their GOP or that they are racist because they are against open borders or amenesty.
      We've had enough of that shilling too.
      Yesterday it reached a height of ugliness in a few diaries, mainly one person, but enough damage was done.

      This is the very FIRST diary I have read that sheds light on this issue, and address the worries and fears that many have regarding illegal wokers.
      And it does so calmly.
      With respect,
      With data - facts - evidence -
      And ZERO insults or infammatory language.
      It's a perfect diary and came at a perfect time.  
      Obvioulsy, Duke is on the pro side
      I'm not.
      But he's helping me understand, that  I might need to change on my tune on some issues.
      Calling me a racist or bigot immediately turns me off, hardens my stance, I lose all resect for the other side of the argument.
      Kind of like how I feel when I try to talk to some rabid right winger who calls me a American Hating Islamofacist because I want Gitmo shut down.
      I immediately think that person had leg to stand on and they're bloviating.

      I am worried about the effects this has on our already overburdened system. I am worried about wages for construction jobs in the tank.
      And those ARE jobs americans want to do

      Thanks Duke...I'm actually still reading.
      This is the longest diary I ever opended and read since I've been here (2004) but probably one of the best.
      I just am thrilled when I read an opposing viewpoint, and the rational presented is so precise that I actually am swayed and my viewpoints soften or change .
      Miracles stil happen I guess.

      "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

      by Christin on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:24:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  tell that to kos (7+ / 0-)

        in 24 hours he posted 4 diaries promoting the "so and so is a racist" mantra and Susan G also rescues these sorts of "diaries" yet the other ones, sometimes written by labor activists get ignored or spammed.

        Case in point is connecting bad trade deals with this issue.  You've never seen a trade diary front paged.

        This 2D "either you are for open borders or you are a racist xenophobe" name calling thing not only is offensive to me, and I'm active in the Democratic party very involved in Progressive issues, but I believe they are slitting the throat on a hell of a lot of '08 races, especially congressional races.  Being labeled as open border (despite the real position) in some of these areas will surely be the kiss of death.

        http://blog.noslaves.com

        by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:41:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I know Bob,,,,, (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rick, BobOak, uscitizenvoter, numen

          And that's why on this issue, I totally ignore what markos has to say.
          Because I disagree with him profoundly in how he's framing this, which is why I put him on ignore,
          He's doing exactly what I spoke about, as did you -
          The day he made that crack about "scary brown people", I was like "okay, that's it."
          Again, that's  a GOP tactic that has no place here.
          And then he really upped it by pulling  a Drudge and calling Rahm Emmuanl a racist.
          So insert shrug here.
          Sometimes markos is right, sometimes wrong,
          Daily Kos is more than just him anway as much as I respect him.
          It's the front pagers, The diarists the community.
          Anyway, I think Im done with those who call Liberal Progressive Democrats racists and xenophonic just like I'm done with right wing nut jobs, fox news, rush and sean,
          It's just a waste of time to even try to find commen ground
          Instead, the focus should be a diaries like Duke's.

          "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

          by Christin on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:57:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ah (4+ / 0-)

            which is probably why I blast duke most.  One needs to understand the fine details of policy to see the spin he puts on this, the false information, the statistics repression, but his position is basically open border.

            In this one I highlighted why specifically.  

            I mean that's much more subtle than kos name calling a huge percentage of Dem congressional reps and party members.  I posted the issues already, but this simply is not the Progressive caucus position on this topic.  (this is a real caucus within the house of representatives).  

            look at employment law enforcement, interior enforcement, the idea that American workers should get the jobs first, no labor arbitage and border security.

            It's subtle but he's not representing anything Progressive.  Bernie Sanders is still head of the Progressive caucus and you will not see such policy recommendations coming from him or the AFL-CIO as well.  

            http://blog.noslaves.com

            by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:04:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  hmmmmm. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Duke1676

              You got something for me to read?
              Any interesting links or did you post a diary on this?
              Bernie Sanders...maybe I'll google him. See what his thoughts are,

              I guess I'm just blown away by Duke's respect for the other side,
              It's come to that in this argument for me...
              I just never saw so much name calling and heated b.s. on any issue since i've been here,
              Or maybe one that insulted me so greatly.
              I'm on the other side for the first time it feels like,
              I'm kinda lost,
              So Duke gets major mojo from me,

              "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

              by Christin on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:15:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  be a critical reader (5+ / 0-)

                is all I ask and it's volumes.  

                Sanders on CIR (comprehensive immigration reform) interview.
                They put it on the site.  But in essence, Sanders, a socialist, the ultimate fighter for workers, talks extensively about labor economics in these battles.

                Another Progressive is Peter DeFazio who also talks about it.  There are many and I would like them to put together a bill, knowing it would get tabled immediately by the big money, corporate special interests, but to do it to show a true Progressive position, for this ain't it.

                http://blog.noslaves.com

                by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:23:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I love Bernie... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BobOak, uscitizenvoter

                  I listen to him on Thom Hartmann's show,
                  I think I am a critical thinker,
                  Well, maybe not so much anymore
                  I'm really having a hard time reading anything republican wise since 1998,
                  It's ilke I put my fingers in my ear going la la la,
                  But other than that....I do understand the other side.
                  Why we (the US) are so disliked and reviled in much of the world,

                  I tried to convey that with 9/11, And my friends were horrified,
                  I tried to tell them that I understood why the highjackers did what they did.
                  So they turned green, and I'm all "that doesn't mean I agreee,,,' but it kinda went nowhere,

                  But , I thought ALL lliberals and progressives were and are critical thinkers.
                  They see the shades of gray,
                  As opposed to the GOP who see black/white,
                  But on this issue - people who enter the country illegally, I see not so much of that,
                  Just this knee jerk reaction from many who say "you're either with us or against us. you're either for amnesty and open borders, or you're a racist bigot right winger."
                  That is what is truly bizarre and discombobulating for me,

                  I just mowed by own lawn and did landscaping with the S.O,
                  I'm the cheapest labor there is,

                  Thank you for the link.
                  Do i read the transcript or are you saying there is audio?

                  "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

                  by Christin on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:03:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  adsf (3+ / 0-)

                    there are a hell of a lot of floor speeches, but I don't have those, I have ones talking about guest worker Visas.   Ya know call up the show when Bernie is on and plain ask him.  He's got to be one of the most accessible to people Senators I've ever seen.  You obviously are a critical thinker, but there is clearly a fraction on here who are...well, on their own agenda which requires a lack of critical thinking and a hell of a lot of name calling and other methods to shut up positions they don't want to hear.  ;)

                    http://blog.noslaves.com

                    by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:21:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  duh.....you're right. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BobOak

                      why don't i just call in since i listen to it all the time?
                      coward i guess.
                      but i'd love to hear his views on this....i know what thom's are.
                      thanks bob.
                      you know...i wrote something on why i feel the way i did a few months ago..before the hard liners started pulling out the race card to try to bring everyone into their hard line views.
                      And that's what's really starting to tick me off.
                      It's like how dare you tell me I if I don't agree to breaking the law, I'm a bigot. It just really gets to me.
                      My parents got off in the boat in 1950, didn't know one word of English, but had to wait two years till they got cleared.
                      So that's where I'm coming from and it formed the foundation on my views.

                      "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

                      by Christin on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 05:03:52 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  DeFazio (5+ / 0-)

                DeFazio on immigration, op-ed

                Congressman DeFazio represents the most crunchy granola, also highly productive farming area in the country.  He is far left, a member of the Progressive caucus and has been on the forefront of fighting more labor arbitraging bad trade agreements for years as well as corporate corruption and he is strongly for US working America.  He's also not bought or corrupted, smart as hell.

                This is Eugene Oregon, probably the most Progressive city in the country.

                So, while people would blast him on here for being a "racist xenophobe" he knows some economic realities and why he has the positions he does and why one needs to take a good long look at actual legislation and policy.  

                http://blog.noslaves.com

                by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:22:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Please Give Me A Link. (0+ / 0-)

            he really upped it by pulling  a Drudge and calling Rahm Emmuanl a racist.

            I've got my problems with Rahm on this issue, and would like to see where Kos called him a racist for this -- although I doubt it.

            "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

            by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 02:54:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  WRONG (0+ / 0-)

          My dear, I thing you need to take a long break. If you have not realized that this is nothing but a propaganda for the right-wing nuts, then you are out of touch. Republicans have nothing to boast about anymore. We don't want Dems to start shifting to the right. If we start sounding inhumane like them, forget it. They win. Don't forget that immgrants, legal or not, have connections with everyday citizens.

  •  Immigrants obviously add stress (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alma, dkmich, BobOak, LynneK

    All additional people do.

    No matter how law abiding and hard working immigrants are some will still be criminals or moochers.

    •  It is our nature, unfortunately. n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alma, LynneK
    •  The real criminals and moochers are the (0+ / 0-)

      Americans that knowingly and deliberately break the law by hiring undoucumented workers to save a few bucks.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:37:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What About The Americans. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mariachi mama

        Who control the insurance, agricultural, investment, defense, and oil industries?

        I mean, shit, fucking, damn, where's our priorities? There's an awful lot of whipping of impoverished but hard working people here, with an air of "how dare you call me a racist for it" attitude. The "factual" underpinning for whipping on these workers is that Duke is advocating open borders, whereupon the whip is directed at Duke for supposedly acting against the interests of American workers.

        Yet not one quote from Duke's lengthy diary that supports the open borders accusation. Not one. Instead it's an argument that leaps from Duke's basic premise that there should continue to be legal and strictly supervised immigration into the US, as somehow an advocacy of open borders.

        That is a Republican talking point -- any way you cut it.

        "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

        by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:19:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It may be a Republican Talking point (0+ / 0-)

          "There's an awful lot of whipping of impoverished but hard working people here, with an air of "how dare you call me a racist for it" attitude."

          I can show you misery of undocumented workers in this country, and I can show you misery of American citizens struggling to survive.

          All I see is human misery - and both of these groups of people are victims.

          Open borders and immigration are discussions of something driven by need.

          The need is twofold .. one is the need of people to find refuge from repression in their own countries. It's a legitimate reason to emigrate to this country. One can argue that feeding one's family so they can survive is a legitimate need, as well.

          The other need is the greed of the rich and powerful in this country. You don't find many poor and even middle class Americans employing undocumented workers. It's the rich that do that.

          And just who are the rich again? The ones that control the insurance, agricultural, investment, defense, and oil industries? Whom do they vote for?

          "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
          If you want to go far, go together.
          We have to go far, quickly."

          by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:58:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I don't like calling it a crisis. That plays into (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catchaz

    the idea that immigration itself is what ails our country, and it isn't.

    I do think there are real problems - including political problems - coming to a humane policy that balances various competing legitimate interests.  For example raising wages at the bottom and allowing people to unite families. But the talk of crisis just fuels the notion that we're being overrun by hordes of people who we are unable to assimilate.

  •  Let's charge for entrance. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak, LynneK, uscitizenvoter

    Whether we like it or not, there already is a market for US residence (coyote fees), so we may as well get the benefit from that.  IMHO, some people that are otherwise skeptical of immigration would be amenable to it if we just started pulling in revenue from it.

    •  And put the fees toward Social Security.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, LynneK

      ...and maybe Medicare too.

      I still think there is a way to link immigration with Social Security and Medicare reform that will make it palatable to the masses.

      After all, we need the young workers immigration provides to expand our economy enough to keep Social Security and Medicare afloat for current citizens, who skew older and are no longer replacing themselves in the work force.

    •  That would be a form of class warfare (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuco35

      Basically, it sends a message that when it comes to immigration, only the rich need apply. That's not what Emma Lazarus meant when she wrote "Give me your hungry, your poor..."

  •  Cultural differences from previous immigration (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LynneK

    I would argue that there are also cultural differences from previous immigration waves.

    Namely, that the new waves of immigrants are moving into the culturally conservative Southeast, unlike previous waves who largely hit the Northern cities and Hispanic communities of the Southwest.

  •  It's as if you are inside my head with this (9+ / 0-)

    I agree with almost everything, excellent points and analysis. Sorry I missed it in the regular diaries.

    The only general point I would change would be one of emphasis. The motor which drives the massive influx of undocumented workers is greed.

    I related this before, and will do now, because it is so emblematic of the problem. About 3 years ago now, NPR's Talk of the Nation discussed this issue. A female caller to the show complained that if labor laws were enforced, and undocumented workers were paid the same as citizens, she couldn't afford her nanny and her housekeeper.

    The problem is us.

    The problem is our nation's greed, and our nation's overwhelming desperate need and arrogance to take advantage of every possible edge we can get.

    The example I show above is of course nothing compared to the corporate use of undocumented workers. In volume, there's little doubt that it's corporations that use undocs as methodology to keep their labor costs low and demands from workers for fair treatment diluted.

    Without the motor of plentiful jobs offered to undocumented workers, which screws the American citizen in the process, the flow of undoumented workers will slow.

    "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
    If you want to go far, go together.
    We have to go far, quickly."

    by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:27:20 AM PST

    •   this kind of highlights something the writer (0+ / 0-)

      missed in this overview--
         A lot of the immigrant jobs have been created to support the mmancipation of women from housework and childcare -- those low wage nanny jobs, eldercare workers,  housecleaners, foodservers that prepare the quick meals women pick up on the way home from their professional jobs ---
         The kind of jobs that require a good degree of adult judgement, care, attention to cleanliness propriety, physical strength and the ability to read or learn fairly complex procedures -- that add to the quality of life for everybody but don't fit into a monetary income -- that were traditionally done at no cost by women or older children for their families -- seem to be what the immigrants are getting into.
         I don't mean to imply that women should go back home and take care of their families, or that all women were contributing to equally  great degrees to their families (I'm thinking of some women I know who spend time on tennis lessons, spa treatments, and lunches out with the girls rather than working, and teens playing video games all day)   but that this phenomonon either coincides with or is directly a result of the trends of moving women out of the home, and children and young adults either having unrelenting study/practice/education/travel/play schedules that don't allow for participation in family support.
        Also, we have way too much stuff for a single family to take care of, so the pool people, gardeners, et al have to come in to maintain life as we want it.  

      •  Even if there some truth to this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fastwacks, mariachi mama

        I find the premise unacceptable.

        The "emancipation" of mostly rich white women from the drudgery of housework and childcare upon the backs of undocumented labor is a morally repugnant thing to behold.

        Doesn't mean it isn't true, however. And that is, sadly my point. The problem is widespread, the exasperation in the woman's voice that she'll have to pay more to get the job done - or horrors of horrors, do the work herself was clear and palpable.

        My example of the woman calling into NPR is unfortunately true, and I believe it is emblematic of most of America's attitude towards non-citizens.  This greed and willingness to take advantage of the weak is repellent, and the idea that one 'repressed' group rose up upon the backs of another - shudder.

        But same as it ever was. It's at the very core of the American success story.

        Most importantly, once realized these types of actions should not be used to justify in any way fashion or form the continuation of a practice like this.

        "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
        If you want to go far, go together.
        We have to go far, quickly."

        by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:17:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •   There's a deeper problem here - (0+ / 0-)

           Had the value of women's lives and aspirations been valued all along by our society, and had the importance of personal services to other people been valued, then support structures such as community day care and elder care arrangements would be much better in this country, allowing greater freedom for women (and some men) and better quality of life for everybody.
            We have created a class of professional women with families, who have few choices but to exploit the weaker in society, whether it be their older daughters or immigrant workers, in order to compete  in the corporate cultures we have in place.
            The costs of everything are being shifted to those least able to pay; the strong retain the profits.

          •  No, I reject this out of hand (0+ / 0-)

            Corporations may try to enforce this meme upon us, but you are talking about a narrow scope of women in the workforce.

            Emancipation for all human beings from preconceived notions is a good thing: the freedom to choose whom is the homemaker and primary child care parent is available to all. There are males who are the 'domestic parent' in traditional marriages. The choice to have both parents work is not the operative cause of undocumented immigration.

            However, some will use it as an excuse to abuse people without power, to take advantage of them for their own selfish purposes.

            No. You are confusing cause and effect relationships between these concepts. Some of the lazy and powerful will use  anything at hand at their disposal, but undocumented workers are not a necessity to emancipation of women.  

            "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
            If you want to go far, go together.
            We have to go far, quickly."

            by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:50:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  that's false (4+ / 0-)

        it was increased productivity as well as reduced number of children per family that enables more women into the "acknowledged" workplace.

        But, the bottom line is you are talking about a domestic, reasonably static worker population and that did not, repeat did NOT affect the labor supply for it was much less of an influx in addition to demand rose for more workers over that period.

        It's not the same thing at all in terms of labor markets, it's like saying that illegals came in because horses were put out to pasture with the invention of the automobile.  There is nothing correlating the two issues here by any statistical method, including some long stretch spurious ones.

        The reason you have more "pool people" is income disparity.  The reality is middle class families when there was more social mobility and economic justice, didn't think they needed personal servants for status and wealth.    

        http://blog.noslaves.com

        by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:47:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent analysis, Duke. I wished I (6+ / 0-)

    had seen this when it was first posted so I could rec it...

    Progressives need to gain control of the immigration debate in this country, and your proposals are a great starting point. This should be required reading for all our candidates...

    Another shining example of why "Diary Rescue" is such a genius idea...

    "What were you thinking? Why didn't you act? Didn't you care?" -Al Gore

    by Rumarhazzit on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:30:12 AM PST

  •  sounds ok....blowback in Oklahoma (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty

    I am not a fast reader so I am basing my opinion from scanning the conclusion.  Sounds pretty good, but I do think the inflow needs to be controlled, how exactly, I'm not sure.   I'm not saying don't let anyone in, but it should be monitored and limited until we can get a better handle on this.

    I do think those that are already here, who are functioning in society, not participating in criminal behavior and supporting themselves and their families should be able to start working toward citizenship.

    By the way, Oklahoma (my state), recently adopted a pretty draconian immigration law and many of those who supported are suffering the consequences (as well as those who didn't support it).

    If you allow your driver's license to expire before renewing, you are screwed and basically have an all day hassle involved in gettng your license renewed.

  •  Fed Reserve (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak, uscitizenvoter

    the fed reserve is not some benevolent independent body working for the common good. we certainly don't need another company like it regulating government policy.

    onnyturf.com - Political and Community Coverage of NYC

    by atomicBirdsong on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:33:12 AM PST

    •  But an independent board like the Reserve (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Duke1676, Nightprowlkitty

      That sets quotas, provides data, helps formulate  administrative policy regarding immigration would go a long way towards lowering the temperature and making policy consistent. Right now entry and exit responsibilities are divided between ICE, Homeland Security, the State Department, whatever. Al with divided responsibilities and goals. With varying results and the usual demagoguing of the issue.

      With a Bureau of Tourism and Immigration in HUD having the responsibility of issuing visas and handling passports and entry into this country, and whose sole job would be to enforce these and process applications, the front door would be clear, reasonable, measured.

      A Crushie for Democracy There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and fools.

      by CarolDuhart on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:11:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this excellent diary! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rick, Christin

    Yesterday, we saw Democratic office-holders tarred as "racists" or "cowards" for supporting a comprehensive approach to immigration issues.  As you succinctly lay out, a comprehensive approach, by necessity, includes not only normalization/regularization of the immigration status of undocumented workers (something which draws near unanimous support both on dailykos and by our elected Dem representatives), but also some forms of border security initiatives (such as more money for Border Security agents and more investment of resources into ICE) as well as possible employer sanctions and more enforcement of those that already exist.

    In order to build support for a comprehensive bill, we need to emphasize not only the legalization aspects but also the security aspects.  And it seems to make sense that those elements of our coalition that represent constituencies full of immigrants would lean towards emphasizing bringing the millions of hardworking taxpaying undocumented immigrants out of the shadows and into a regularized life and those that represent districts that tend towards opposition to immigration would emphasize the security aspects of the comprehensive approach.  So long as they remain on the same page regarding a comprehesive bill, in my view, this will be helpful in building a much-needed consensus.

    I'm thrilled that someone here is taking this issue seriously!  Yesterday, with all the race-baiting, I was very disheartened about this site.  Thankfully, a well-written well-researched diary focusing on the comprehensive approach is now competing against the nonsensical diatribes of the past few days.

    Excellent diary!  Recommended!

    Let justice reign though the heavens tremble

    by Viceroy on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:38:43 AM PST

  •  I think it's reasonable (5+ / 0-)

    I wholeheartedly agree with your point that immigrants themselves are not the enemies. I dislike it when Americans paint the illegals themselves as enemies when illegal immigration is a symptom of our economic policies.

    I like the idea of empowering the unions by first legalizing then unionizing illegal immigrants. If you give them a path to citizenship, that's one less immigrant that big business can exploit.

    I expect to be flamed here but I will not support the anti-immigrant sentiment that seems to be creeping into this community and our nation as a whole.

    Putting vigilantes at the border and building a fence will NOT solve this problem!

    •  It's not a sympton of our economy; (0+ / 0-)

      it's a symptom of Mexico's economic policies and labor abuses.

      •  No it is not (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shpilk, Duke1676, Nightprowlkitty

        Did you even bother to read all of the article?

        Go back and read again. Then, study the history of NAFTA and how it has affected Mexico's economy.

        •  Peso crisis predated Nafta; (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BobOak

          and a huge problem is the corruption endemic in Mexican labor unions.  

          •  The Basic Problem In Mexico... (3+ / 0-)

            ...is control of its economy by global (primarily American) corporations, and the Mexican oligarchy supported by American interests who profit from this support. The unions are an afterthought.

            Nafta made it easier to control Mexico's economy by the oligarchs and multi-national corporations, and hastened the impoverishment of the Mexican working classes.

            "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

            by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:25:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The unions could help reallocate gains; (0+ / 0-)

              but the leaders are all on the take.  In a society that corrupt, it's inevitable that unions will be on the take, too.  

              Mexico has always been ruled by oligarchs, so I'm not sure I see the sense of your position.

              •  Well, Just That... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nightprowlkitty

                ...the context of how America is engaged in controlling the Mexican economy, and profiting immensely at the expense of Mexicans, is often lost in the argument that the plight of Mexico's workers is its own fault, and thus by implication the fault of its workers.

                Mexican corruption, official and union, is certainly a problem. But the fundamental problem is that the shots on the Mexican economy are being called on Wall Street, and they don't favor the Mexican worker. Which is not to say that the effect wouldn't be the same if the shots were called in the Zona Rosa. But it is our interests which are putting the squeeze on Mexican workers now.

                "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

                by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 03:03:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  MX 0.9% annual GDP increase during last 25 Years (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Duke1676, BobOak, mariachi mama

              To give you all an idea of just how mediocre GDP/Capita growth has been in Mexico during the last 25 years..

              0.9% a year.

              Since NAFTA passed, the gap between GDP/capita income in the US and Mexico has actually INCREASED.

              Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

              by PatriciaVa on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 07:02:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Without the greed of Americans who willingly (0+ / 0-)

      break the law to save a few bucks, the whole engine which drives people from Estonia, Latvia, Ireland, Russia, Bulgaria, the Philippines, Taiwan, China, Malaysia, and also from Mexico and other 'Latino' countries will slowly dry up.

      I don't necessarily agree that a path citizenship is the ultimate solution: but all foreign workers should be documented so they can pay taxes, be held responsible for their actions, and garner the benefits of protections afforded under our laws as well.

      Having people who live undocumented means they have no power, no ability to make legal claims against employers; it's just what the greedy business class wants. A class of subservient people who are prevented from having their rights.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:01:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe the danger here is in believing (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bdevil89, BobOak, uscitizenvoter

        but all foreign workers should be documented so they can pay taxes, be held responsible for their actions, and garner the benefits of protections afforded under our laws as well.

        That requiring something to occur suggests that it will in fact occur.

        It is required by law now that one be in the country legally in order to work, it is required as a part of that process that the person seeking work provide documents that they are legally entitled to work (in other words that they are 'documented').

        None of this works now, I see nothing which would force any such solution to work without enforcement of those laws.

        I  don't see that we need more laws. Illegal immigration happens in the face of these laws which have been on the books for decades.

        <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

        by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:57:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  People who are against illegal immigrants (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike Erwin, immigradvocate

    should send jobs and condoms southward.  However, the very people who are against illegal immigrants are also the people who are against the working class and the use of contraception.  

    I'm descended from immigrants.  Were they legal?  How would I know--it was 200 years ago!  I suspect they weren't.  They came from France, Ireland, Scotland, and Sweden, as far as I know. It takes enormous courage to turn your back on everything you've known all your life and go to a new country where no one knows you and you're unfamiliar with the language, the culture, and everything else.

    I applaud those with that sort of courage.

    If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got.

    by Diana in NoVa on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:47:53 AM PST

    •  That doesn't follow, Diana (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BobOak, uscitizenvoter

      No one I know is against LEGAL immigration; it's just the illegal kind most of us have a problem with.  As I see it, illegal immigration hurts the working class most -- and there is real pain out there.

      If we were in a better position as a country, I could make a more credible argument for opening our arms and welcoming more people.  At this point, however, there is no good argument for even tolerating them, if you are a member of the working class.

      •  Nope. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nightprowlkitty, echatwa

        It's not illegal immigration which hurts the working class most. Whatever hurt it may cause, it certainly doesn't come close to hurting workers as much as union-busting, weakening of OSHA rules, Wal-Mart, outsourcing, to name a few items, have hurt American workers.

        Get some perspective here. We're willing to cut the phone carriers amnesty for trashing our constitutional rights, but can't stand to give amnesty to undocumented workers, even those who were brought as children and are respected members of our society, because it would "reward lawbreaking and send the wrong message".

        "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

        by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:35:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's not true. FAIR, Numbers USA and (0+ / 0-)

        lots of so called progressive here want no immigration. The only bills they support here are enforcement.

  •  It's good to see Duke (7+ / 0-)

    Getting the attention he deserves on Daily Kos.  

    The U.S. "immigration debate" has lost sight of justice.

    by kyledeb on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:50:04 AM PST

  •  Where's the beef? (0+ / 0-)

    I saw very few concrete suggestions, and I don't really agree with the ones I did see.  An independent non-partisan authority?  Post-Bush, there's really no such thing--just look at the US Supreme Court!  Yes, unions would help protect jobs, spread the wealth more equitably, etc., but that's hardly an immigration proposal.

    In the end, what we have to realize is that immigrants, legal or illegal, will always be attractive to employers.  But these are working people, and hence contributors to US productivity.  What we want is that they help fill jobs with big backlogs of demand, without compromising wages, safety or civil rights.

    The best way to do this is to grant absolute equality to immigrants with US workers.  Got paid less?  Notice safety violations?  Experienced or witnessed sexual harassment?  You have as much right to petition government (federal, state or local) as anybody else; your immigration status can neither deny you government protection nor expose you to retaliatory enforcement of immigration laws.  Want to join a union?  Sure--if you're doing the work, everyone's better off by having you join a suitable union!

    Parity is the answer, down the line.  Once a human is in the US, treat him or her as a human.  Stop denying drivers' licenses, bank accounts, emergency healthcare, public education, etc. to such people--if you do, you remove every incentive they have to play by the rules.  Yes, they've broken one rule by sneaking in, but now that they're here, there are many more they can break!  It hurts us all when they do so, and it hurts much more than the immigration violation!

    Driving a wedge between (illegal) immigrants and US workers was the most effective--and the most insidious--tactic the plutocrats adopted to ensure a steady supply of an underclass of workers.  Our side should be ashamed of itself for not having seen through this tactic!

  •  ON point Number 2 (0+ / 0-)

    I think claiming the US embraced each wave of immigrants is a little too rosy of a picture.  Different groups always picked on each other.  Once they established themselves, there was always some new, uneducated, poorer group to pick on and feel superior to.

    Also I think the discussion of immigrants as a deliberate tool to drive down wages and weed out union activity needs to go back much further in history.  I highly recommend Mike Davis' book on this subject: "No One is Illegal".  You'll see how the current brown scare is just one in a very long history.  Even before California was a state and therefore all immigrants could legally take over land there were different groups being illegally deported, beaten up and murdered.  Pioneers had to get rid of the Dutch, the natives, the Australians, the Mexicans during the Gold Rush.  Businessmen even got the laws changed when Filipinos (a US colony so a totally legal immigrant population) got too uppity, so they were deported.

    Business interests have a huge say in lobbying for legislative quotas of who gets in; no one talks about that...we'll let computer programmers from Europe get visas easily...but there's no way we're going to change the laws to let 1000s of dishwashers from the South come.

    Also look into the fascinating history of the Wobblies.  An extremely radical Union that would include any ethnicity.  Compare that to the strong all-white AFL-CIO...who were even hired as thugs by agrobusiness leaders to bust up farm labor unions.

  •  I'm really only interested in point #4... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak, Hens Teeth

    ...the one about addressing the conditions that foment the urge to come to the U.S.  Nobody currently outside the U.S. has any moral claim on coming here, except for those who have made sacrifices to support the U.S. (the Hmong, Iraqis who have worked with us, etc.), but there are millions of people who will try to come here simply because it's foolish for them not to try--they're too close to our borders, and the gap in living standards (and overall "life chances") is too vast, for us to expect otherwise.  That's the rational basis for the current wall-building mania: at the end of the day it's a legitimate response if you accept the two premises.  The question is whether we can do better than that, and I think economic development in Mexico is the only solution.  And let's not get side-tracked: Mexico is the sole issue here.  Even Central America is only an issue because Mexico has a well-developed culture of migration, intermediaries, etc.

    The question is how we can encourage better economic outcomes for poor people in Mexico.  Any suggestions?

    •  truly (5+ / 0-)

      I've seen repeal NAFTA extensively, another is for the illegals to go vote in a socialist instead of yet another big business corrupt corporatist in their elections.  Invest in social services, infrastructure, education, which the income disparity in Mexico is much worst that the US (although we're closing in!), change the corporate tax structure, build a social safety net...

      hell, legalize pot, that's one large cash crop that could help out.  

      http://blog.noslaves.com

      by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:27:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mexico, by far, has the highest per capita income (0+ / 0-)

      in Latin America. Mexicans have been coming and going from the U.S. for 500 years.

      •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BobOak

        Per capita income doesn't mean anything when it's poorly distributed.  Mexico could have the same per capita income as the US but if Carlos Slim pockets it all, we'll get mass immigration.

        As for their coming and going, that's nice but I don't care.  We're not talking about visits, we're talking about permanent moves.  Conservatives are right when they say that a principal attribute of sovereignty is controlling your borders and who can come into your country from the outside.  If we don't accept that truth, we don't have any credibility in any progressive immigration proposal.

        •  You're right, but it isn't properly distributed (0+ / 0-)

          in the rest of Latin America either. I'm just saying it's not just about poverty. It's about our labor needs and people looking for a better life for their families.

          •  OK, we're close enough :) (0+ / 0-)

            Well, I guess there is a difference, and it's a significant one.  I am assuming that if Mexico got to a certain level of aggregate prosperity and fair distribution, people wouldn't seek to come to the US in large numbers.  Your position, as I understand it, suggests that so long as there is any significant differential between living standards here and there, we're going to have the urge to immigrate.  I hope that's not true, because if it is, the situation is hopeless and we'll be in the neoliberal hell of free flows of labor until wage rates are equalized at the lowest possible level.

  •  DOn't blame the politicians; it's businessmen... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak

    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 what about NAFTA?  This is a problem created by business interests...it's not just a Conservative issue except as far as they are lapdog to business interests.  Dems do it too...look at Rangel now.

    And as far as our founding principles...not to diss the Constitution writers, but remember they introduced the notion of owning property to the US.  The indians didn't play by those rules.  And many of the founders were happy slaveowners...let's not over idealize them....

  •  A reply (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bdevil89, BobOak, uscitizenvoter

    The number of immigrants has not really changed
    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).

    And when the population is 500 million, should the percentage of people allowed to immigrate still be 12% of the population?

    How about when it is 600 million, 700 million, 800 million, 900 million?

    You infer that simply because is has been an average of around 14%, it should continue to be so.

    Yet you still have not offered one economic study which states that the currently requires, or will in the future require, a very large infusion of low-wage low-skilled workers.

    You make the statement that 'all of them are working' yet you do not admit what you and I both know. Many of them would not be working if their employers could not pay them less, and they will not be working once their employer is forced to pay them more.

    In addition, you have not stated where you will get the energy to move them, the food to feed the them, or the water to bathe them.

    And when they spend the majority of there disposable income at WalMart on cheap Chinese shit, you have not stated where you are going to find the land fill to bury all of that trash.

    Nor do you say where the tax base is going to come from to educate their children, nor where you are going to get the tax base to provide for today's social safety programs for them.

    What is different today then during past immigration waves?

    We were a manufacturing society with none of the requirements of the modern welfare state which exists today.

    Over the period of the sixty years in which fewer than 6 million Irish came to the US, the majority of the population did not pay Federal or State Income Taxes, there was no large federally mandated public school system, no Medicare, virtually nothing.

    You seem to want to continue to make the comparison, without having to really make the comparison. You seem to want to say, 'there is no difference', and then close of any real debate as to the differences.

    You want to simply want to continue to import into what is now largely a financial service economy of 300 million what are in the majority low-skilled low-wage workers, make first world consumers out of them all, say that none of this has an real effect on the 300 million that are here now, and state that this is comparable to the immigration of 5 million Irish over the course of sixty years into a manufacturing economy of less than 90 million people with virtually no social services and no taxes.

    I'm sorry but there simply is no comparison. There is a great deal different today.

    Let's look at what globalization has done to both the US and Mexican economies

    We agree that NAFTA, CAFTA, and what will be Peru, Panama, and Colombia have contributed in a meaningful way to illegal immigration to this country, but look what is happening -- more 'free trade' deals -- yet you seem to want to 'legalize the 12 million' first, and work on correcting the trade deals later. I contend that, like amnesty first and enforcement later, it's not going to work -- and it's just more Post Tax Democrat thinking to suggest that it will.

    Currently "workplace enforcement" revolves around the government rooting out unauthorized workers and deporting them. The businesses rarely receive any punishments

    It is disingenuous of you to suggest that you don't know exactly why this is true. You know as well as I it is because the Democratic Party does not support worksite enforcment, and that is the primary reason there is a 'knowingly' clause in the law, but no 'tamper proof ID' which would make going after the employers practical.

    Instead of swat teams of ICE agents storming factories and meatpacking plants looking for undocumented immigrants

    Without worksite and interior enforcment, you can have all of the labor law and unions that you want. Illegal immigration will continue largely unabated.

    This is the same logic which says that putting environmental and labor law into a 'free trade' agreement with Peru is going to keep American corporations from streaming into Peru and flogging that nine dollar a day labor and shipping those newest fashions from the GAP right back into the US.

    With all respect Duke you end up simply carrying the water for the Democratic Party leadership.

    'Legalize the 12 million and secure the borders' (and add on all you want about 'labor law' and 'unions')

    Without strong worksite enforcement and interior enforcement we will end up right back where we are today, because that is exactly how we got here in the first place.

    By the way, congratulations on making the Front Page, as you know I stated back in August that Democrats were 'losing the argument' on this issue. It is my opinion that this issue should have been on the Front Page two years ago.

    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

    by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:01:14 AM PST

    •  first off (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mijita, Nightprowlkitty, Dianna, echatwa

      thanks you for the congrats on the FP ... let it not be said that you're not a always gentleman even in our most heated arguments.

      As to:

      "With all respect Duke you end up simply carrying the water for the Democratic Party leadership."

      On this I beg to differ. As you are more than well aware,  the leadership has no intention of ever addressing root causation: IE free trade and globalization.

      And for me it it a cornerstone of any plan.

      If we could force the leadership to think out of the box and re-examine the economic policies that have fostered problems on both sides of the border it would go a long way towards accomplishing goals I think we both agree on.

      I think my plan makes far more demands upon the centrist dems than anything put forth so far. ..and I think even you would agree with that.

      •  what? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        uscitizenvoter, ProgressiveGeek

        no, you do not recognize any economic realities here.
        and there are now being blasted many Dems who ran on Progressive, economic populism on here now because they want to enforce employment law!

        You are carrying water for DLC leadership, absolutely.

        I think another activist told you at one point to stop encouraging people to border hop was one part of the solution and you ignored him also.  

        http://blog.noslaves.com

        by BobOak on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:54:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  on enforcement of employment law (5+ / 0-)

          It's right there in the diary ...which you obviously didn't read as per usual.

          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.

    •  I know what he meant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BobOak

      If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      Our dear President was just a little confused.  

      He meant terriers and mastiffs, which makes perfect sense.

  •  Make the employers pay...health care, school (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alden, BobOak

    The illegal immigration "problem" is really a "Mexican workers employed for really low wages and no rights" problem.

    Agriculture, construction, hotel industries want cheap, non-union, disposable labor.  We need to remove the economic incentive and to pay the costs. It's like the drug "problem". The problme is not that cocaine grows in South America it's that American consumers want cocaine.

    Key is making the employers pay for the undocumented workers. Pay workers good wages. Pay local clinics and hospitals for health care. Pay local schools for education. Local townships for police, fire, water services and social services.

    Must pay good wages to worker and hefty tax to local and Fed. government to cover costs.

    As for the Mexican workers, pretty much open border, they need a Mexican ID card of some kind, work visa maybe, and they can come and work in US. Maybe do a return to Mexico every 6 months for renewal. Same would apply to US workers in Mexico.

    •  it's not just 'Mexicans' (0+ / 0-)

      undocs come from Mongolia, Ireland, Estonia, Russia ..

      Defining the problem as 'Mexican' is not the answer here.

      And are you willing to pay higher prices from the produce, the goods and services made by undocumented workers?

      Are you hypothetically willing to pay your nanny from France or England who happens to be undocumented for whatever reason the same wage as an American would get?

      That's the real issue here.

      "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
      If you want to go far, go together.
      We have to go far, quickly."

      by shpilk on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:42:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cut to the chase... (0+ / 0-)

    ...is what the film editors did in the silent movies, knowing the "chase" is what interested movie goers.

    Get to the point quicker.  I'm one of those people who will read just about anything, but I have no interest in disquisitions or master's theses.  

    When the plurality in a Kos pool (at 432 votes) says it's too long, you're in trouble.  If we won't read it, no one will.

    •  Lol ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuco35, Duke1676

      ... you impetuous fool!

      Seriously -- if you want your info in smaller bites, check out Duke's diaries here at Daily Kos.  There's lots of them that would suit your attention requirements.

      This is the culmination of a lot of work.  Some folks will read the whole thing, others won't.  I think enough will that we can start a better discussion on this subject than we have done up till now.

      •  A plurality agreed with me (0+ / 0-)

        Impetuous fool?  Why an impetuous fool?  I am, by the way, an immigrant.  So I have a genuine interest in the topic.

        My attention span is quite long; I don't suffer from ADD.  But I also don't suffer a lot of pointless beating around the bush.

        Most of the people responding to the question agreed agreed that it was too long and windy.

  •  It's not an issue that can be solved overnight. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak

    There are a lot of good points made on this diary from a policy perspective.  It seems to me that border enforcement and a path to legalization make sense as part of a solution.  

    However, I personally see the policy discussion as futile because cheap labor is inherent to the country's standard of living and productivity and has been so since the country's inception.  There is no one single plan that will ever turn back 400+ years of economic history.  If we get rid of cheap Mexican labor, we'll import it from elsewhere or outsource it to a third country.  It's who we are as a country.

    Therefore, I prefer to view this issue from a strictly political lens, because I want to win elections and I don't trust Americans to remain impervious to race-baiting anti-immigrant campaigns over the course of a long election year.

    I agree with Rahm Emmanuel that for the purposes of the election we need to talk enforcement first and make clear that we're serious about it.

    After we get elected, we can put in earned legalization as part of the process.  It's similar to what we have done on issues such as welfare and gun control.  People who vote viscerally don't see nuance.  Immigration is a very visceral issue and our language as a party has to be responsive.

    We can do this without alienating Latino voters because Latino voters are citizens and they would also like to see the laws enforced.  However, what they don't want is a campaign that demonizes and singles out Latinos as the problem, especially when everyone knows the problem is America's historic additiction to cheap labor.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:04:56 AM PST

  •  Language question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty, immigradvocate

    Many of the anti-immigration crowd make a big deal out of their belief that today's immigrants aren't learning English as quickly as previous immigrants.

    I think a lot of people have an idealized vision of great grandpappy's coming through Ellis Island and then, six months later, speaking fluent English while enjoying hotdogs at Yankee Stadium.

    I have a feeling that this was never typically the case.

    Does anybody have any serious statistics about previous generations of immigrants and learning English?

  •  2 more solutions for helping MX/Central America (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty

    Thank you for high-lighting a very complex issue!  Here are more suggestions for helping Mexico, South & Central America raise standards of living.  Family planning is a problem.  First, the abortion laws in many of these countries are draconian.  In Nicaragua, a married woman died because her doctors had been afraid to perform an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy.  In Nicagua, apparently, doctors cannot perform abortions unless the fetus is dead (screw the life of the woman). In addition, birth control is not readily available in rural areas.  Though birth control pills are OTC in Mexico, they only are available in highly urban areas such as Mexico City.  Second, the culture prevelent in our Southern neighbors' societies is male-dominant.  Any aid to Mexico and South & Central America should focus heavily on female education.  Statistics show that the more education a woman has, the longer she will put off child-bearing.  Female education, therefore, becomes a type of birth control, which doesn't offend anti-abortionists and Catholics.  

  •  The Shuler bill includes some of your conclusions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak

    and is a good first step to finally do something about immigration.

    I think it will pass.

    Geez, I wonder if our government is broken? Edwards: "The government is corrupt"

    by gotalife on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:10:07 AM PST

    •  I hope that people don't call Shuler a racist... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Braising Kane

      because of this bill.  Plus calling people who advocate sensible immigration reform racist is just plain stupid.  If you want to hear some people who are racist against Latinos, listen to some working class African Americans talk about them.  Blacks and browns are competing against the same jobs and the result isn't pretty.

      •  "Racist" and "Nativist" (5+ / 0-)

        are mere substitutes for reasoned argument, as for the most part, the merits are with those who oppose any accommodation toward illegal immigrants.  The winners are our corporate and elitist masters; everyone else loses, big-time.

        •  racism and nativism are the real problem here (0+ / 0-)

          gimme a break with the political correctness, which now means we can't call racists racists.

          Lou Dobbs Tom Tancredo and apparently 25% of the people here, given the poll results, are nativist bigots.

          if it walks like a bigot
          and talks like a bigot
          and votes like a bigot
          it's a bigot!
          duh!

          the time to rise has been engaged...

          by catchaz on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:34:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And in that way, you're stifling debate... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BobOak, numen, Braising Kane

            of people who have genuine concerns about immigration.  There's a big difference between the Klan, etc. and people on Kos.

          •  There's some legitimate basis for Tancredo (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bdevil89, BobOak, uscitizenvoter, numen

            From what I know about Tom Tancredo, he grew up in the barrios and fought Mexican gangs, so you can probably make a credible case that there is some racial animus there.  But to call Dobbs a racist is beyond absurd -- he married a woman of Hispanic descent.  Saying that you hate everyone of a given race or ethnic group just isn't consistent with marrying someone from that same group.

            There are a lot of people here -- on both sides of the controversy -- I would think of tarring with that label before Dobbs.

            •  Beg To Differ. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shpilk, Nightprowlkitty

              How can you so broadly characterize all manner of possible human action? Certainly a bigot can marry someone to dump his bigotry on. Legalize it in a sense.

              The fact that Lou Dobbs may be married to a half-Argentine, or something, doesn't give him a pass to act like a bigot.

              "Make Love Not War". Marcia Makepeace -- San Francisco 1967.

              by chuco35 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:46:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  let's get real (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chuco35, immigradvocate

        no one is issuing blanket statements calling ANYONE concerned about immigration racist.  But to dismiss that there is racism in the debate is myopic and it is one of the after-effects of this debate that we have to examine closely -- it has real detrimental effects for dealing with various issues, beyond immigration.
        While nativist groups are exploiting valid concerns among many to advance their agenda, it is also undeniable that the leading anti-immigrant groups are connected to nativist or supremacy types -- the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Center for New Community have documented that.
        That is why is important for folks who feel ambivalent about immigration to make sure they are not strengthening an agenda they would otherwise not want to be associated with.

        •  There is racism on both sides of this issue (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BobOak, redcardphreek, uscitizenvoter

          But to dismiss that there is racism in the debate

          I submit the so-called 'compassionate progressives' constant use of the term 'brown', 'brown people', 'scary brown people', 'lettuce-pickers', 'latinos', 'mexicans', who are "doing jobs Americans won't do" on the Front Page of the Daily Kos lately.

          I find very little on the right to compete with some so-called 'compassionate progressives' in the racism department when they climb up on their oh so self righteous horses and parade around the Daily Kos.

          <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

          by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:09:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How is what you described (0+ / 0-)

            racist?

            You seem to be confused about what racism is. If you are going to make accusations you should back it up with  evidence. And pointing to people who use "brown people," or "scary brown people" as a way of mocking the other side is not evidence of racism.

  •  Mexico (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak

    I have long wondered why Dems allow the Republicans to vilify all immigration.  Clearly the majority of undocumented workers are from Mexico.  I think that any comprehensive response on immigration must have some particular details that will help to stabilize Mexico.

    I'm in favor of repealing NAFTA.  NAFTA has often been statistically linked to the increase in Mexican immigration.  However, I would prefer immediate legislation that will solve some of these issues.  I think a comprehensive immigration bill will only be a new set of problems.

  •  immigration creates jobs. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuco35, shpilk, Nightprowlkitty, echatwa

    that is a known known. Housing, food, schooling, cars, and more - this creates even more work for the rest of us.

    Illegal immigration provides some industries with cheap and cheaper labor. And worse, the people employing such labor can get away with cheating their workers blind because the workers are so afraid of INS and deportation.
    I see this every day in my solo practice. every day. I will write a thread about it soon.

    Truth be told, we are ALL IMMIGRANTS. Every single one of us. Even the native americans. Africa, asia, europe, that is where man and womankind first arrived and traveled. Some dared come over here, and settled long after humanity learned not to drag its knuckles while walking.

    The idea of "illegal" immigration is born out of greed, fear, and lack of knowledge. Different cultures, skin color, foods, language, music, sexual practices, political beliefs - these are not things to be feared, but to be admired and learned.

    In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

    by agnostic on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:14:55 AM PST

    •  yeah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BobOak, redcardphreek

      and more energy, land, resource consumption, pollution, waste production on top of the "job" production.  

      Where will it end? when we are fighting over clean water in this country?  give me a break about the origin of man.  a gov't of peoples were set up here and it flourished bc people made a unspoken pact to obey the laws as best as they can and function in society.

      It doesn't matter that we are all immigrants, what matters is that the sovereignty of the citizens are preserved and respected.  Changing what illegal means to suit some naive and feebleminded sentimentality vision of the world sans the externalities (the real costs) is no place for the present and the future of this country and the world.  Ask what you are leaving your grandkids by continuing to allow immigration to occur in greater and greater numbers.

      Multiculturalism is all good in the classroom but ask the UK and the European countries what they are going thru, the volume, the loyalty, and the rate of immigration does not allow for integration and respect for the history of the country and the values as well.

      Multiculturalism is just a pipe dream and will eventually lead to a breakdown in society if we must accept every language every custom every what not to accomodate someone from a different culture.  It's pointless except for educational purposes in a classroom and when you travel to other countries.  Try espousing multiculturalism in other countries and see what response you get.

      •  Now you are making right-wing arguments (3+ / 0-)

        You make a good point on the economic and environmental impact of illegal immigrants, although I disagree with your analysis. However, as a 2nd generation American myself, I take offense to your attack on "multiculturalism". Where in our Constitution or our founding documents is their any mention of a specific culture that one must follow to be an American? This is an issue of basic personal liberty, the liberty to follow whatever lifestyle you want to follow as long as it does not directly harm others. You believe in personal liberty, right? And when you talk about a "breakdown in society", with all due respect, the Christofascist right-wingers have been making exactly the same arguments to justify every infringement on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

        Try espousing multiculturalism in other countries and see what response you get.

        There is the United States of America is special. It's not a country based on a rigid culture and nationality. It is a country based on ideas. This argument is analogous to the one that says "other countries torture, so why shouldn't we?"

    •  "we are all immigrants" is a non-sequiter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bdevil89

      and the idea of "illegal" immigration is born out of the creation of nation states and the rule of law.

      what the hell are you talking about?

      Newsday: Rudy Giuliani missing in action for Iraq panel

      by jethropalerobber on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:46:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  illegal immigration is a concoction (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dianna

        by those who would use the natural human trait of wishing to belong to create something extremely destructive called nationalism.

        How many countries sing their national anthem before every sports event? almost no one.
        How many countries have 280 military bases on foreign lands? no one else.
        How many countries changed immigration laws, which originally were based on the idea of "give us your tired, your poor ....." then changed into anti Irish, anti-Greek, anti-German, anti-African, anti-Chinese, anti-Japanese, anti- (fill in the blank) policies based solely on fear, bigotry and lack of knowledge? Our most recent targeted group happens to believe in Allah (as much as they honor JC and other christian symbols) so therefore they are to be feared.

        Open borders? Why not? Where is the harm? Europe has gone from many countries, often at war with each other, to the EU, where you can move, travel, work, settle, have kids, enter into agreements, WITHOUT ANY VISA OR CONTROL.  If the EU can do it, why not the rest of the world?

        In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

        by agnostic on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 05:34:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Worth the read (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Duke1676, Nightprowlkitty, echatwa

    For educational perspectives and linking this issue to the struggle of working Americans. The transfer of wealth right under our noses just leaves the uniformed vulnerable to slogans, scapegoats, and mistruths designed to hit emotion and to obscure a clear analysis.

    Good work, this is one to be saved and sent around!

    sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

    by DrKate on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:16:32 AM PST

  •   more thoughts on immigration -- (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bdevil89, BobOak, numen

     Now that immigration is the topic of the day, it seems to me that, with the drop of the dollar, and discoveries of oil off the coast of Brazil, the upcoming collapse in American real estate and stocks, the question will soon become 'how can we keep citizens (and investments)  to STAY in America.

      My feeling is that we are on the verge of a major depopulating event in the US --greater than the great depression/WWII was.  TB, flu, SARS, AIDS, or some other plague will wipe out the uneducated, unsanitary, fat, improperly nourished, poorly housed, chemically laden and socially inept native populations.  

    America once was a net exporter of fuel, foods, fertilizer, medicines, machinery, education.  The quality of life here was good, and getting betterr. Now we are looking to import water, finished goods, finished (i.e. 'educated') people, foreign capital. And we will have little to pay for these things.

     Gangs are making the immigrant-rich areas of our cities unliveable, even for the new people coming in -- how long will hard working parents continue to come and make sacrifices for the benefit of their children, when those very children are being shot and maimed in street action?

    Nobody is talking about the 'carrying capacity' of the land, or  'zero population growth' or controlled growth or balancing resources with population -- just craming more people into less space.  There is a reason that people are moving out of cities into the fire prone hinterlands -- the cities are becoming unlivable.  All civic planning nowadays is done by profit driven entities, in secrecy.  

  •  I see nothing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bdevil89

    ...about expediting relief for all the people stuck in the LEGAL immigration queues.  Are they all dumb shmucks who are obviously undesirable because they didn't have enough brains and initiative to just come here illegally and start working like any red-blooded, truly desirable future American would do?

    What about some fairness for these people stupid enough to think we actually meant what we wrote in our immigration laws and therefore got in line to wait?

    There may be valid reason to put the illegals on a path to be rewarded with citizenship.  That argument is at the core of THE argument and I'm not going to try to resolve it in one post.  But if we are to grant the illegals that reward, then surely we must offer at least an equal reward to those people who got in line the way we told them to do, many of whom are highly desirable in terms of education and skills.  Or are we truly what so many regard us to be, a nation that at heart appreciates and rewards lawlessness over playing by the rules?  And is that so much of who we are that we're actually going to write it into law?

  •  I strongly encourage everyone to check out... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty

    the YouTube channel on illegal immigration by filmmakers Annabel Park and Eric Byler.   The following video (one of 44) has received 118,000 views so far.

    Thank you for visiting Raising Kaine, the voice of Progressive Virginia.

    by lowkell on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 11:31:12 AM PST

  •  A good start (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joon, Duke1676, Nightprowlkitty, echatwa

    Here's my thoughts:

    *Formulate a reasonable, humane, fair and practical method for determining the levels of immigration going forward.

    I'd say that what is reasonable, humane, fair and practical is going to depend on current political and economic situations. Is it reasonable to have immigration policy dependent on the goals and values of the U.S.A?  Is it inhumane to exclude anyone who wants to immigrate? Who are we being fair to? What's more practical: a method that's easy to change, or difficult to change?

    *Providing a path to legalization for all current undocumented immigrants living and working in the US.

    I'd suggest putting this towards the end of the list.  It's the most controversial part, and having it near the start will stop some folks from reading the rest. Having it near the end also suggests "We're going to do all these things to prevent future problems, then we'll take care of the undocumented folks here."

    *Secure the border by first insuring (sic) 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.

    I don't understand how this will work. Ensuring ease of access for legal immigrants might be worthwhile, but I don't see how that curtails the flow through illegal channels.

    *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.

    This should be the top of the list. Everyone, across the entire political spectrum, should be able to agree with this. It's the biggest change and bringing it up forces the reader to start thinking about the whole issue.

    *Opposition to a "guest worker" program on the grounds that it provides no benefit to the American people or the immigrants themselves.

    Put this close to the top. It's simple, straightforward, and many people will agree with it.

    *Foster an immigration policy that strengthens the middle and working class through unionization and participation in the electoral process.

    Don't you want to foster a labor policy that strengthens the middle and working class to make low-paid immigration ineffective? That seems to be what you're really saying.

    *Strict enforcement of all labor and employment laws

    If my previous item is right, this can be combined with it.

    *Modernize and streamline the immigration process and eliminate the backlogs for those already in the queue

    That's a good idea - if new immigrants are quickly processed, then jumping the line becomes less worthwhile and identifying those folks should become easier.

    *Recognize that immigration is a vital part of maintaining a healthy and vibrant America.

    A very good point that's often lost in this debate.

    RV

    •  all very good points (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nightprowlkitty, mariachi mama

      as to:

      *Secure the border by first insuring (sic) 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

      I think your right that it's not quite clear what I'm trying to say. The point is that with changes to the quota systems and caps determined by provable economic needs, the vast majority of those who currently  enter "illegaly" would able to do so through legal channels. ...eliminating the stress at the border and making it easier to secure. It goes back to the notion that border security should not revolve around chasing down economic migrants, but rather true security risks like criminals, drug dealers etc.

    •  If you 'take care of the undocumented folks here (4+ / 0-)

      I'd suggest putting this towards the end of the list.  It's the most controversial part, and having it near the start will stop some folks from reading the rest. Having it near the end also suggests "We're going to do all these things to prevent future problems, then we'll take care of the undocumented folks here."

      What happens to the constituency to do anything else?

      What happened with IRCA in 1986?

      1.) A program which was to give amesty to 750,000 illegal immigrants amnestied 3.2 million.

      2.) The 'workplace verification system' is called 'Basic Pilot' and wasn't brought on line until 1996, ten years after IRCA was passed. 'Basic Pilot' still doesn't work right i.e. it still can't tell you whether two people are using the same Social Security Card, and it is only robust enough to handle a fraction of the number of employers in the country.

      3.) The US VISIT system still can't tell you when a person with a visa leaves the country.

      4.) There is no 'tamper proof ID' which was part of the orginal IRCA legislation.

      5.) There is virtually no interior or worksite enforcement (one of the reasons for this being no 'tamper proof ID).

      Please Read This Diary

      <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

      by superscalar on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:14:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The reason there wasn't is because (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mariachi mama

        The President we had at the time was incapable or unwilling to take a systems approach to the measure. And once again we have a President unable and unwilling to make comprehensive reform a priority.

        An Immigration Commission would make this a priority by reworking the laws and the system to make immigration law truly progressive and truly workable.

        Principles:

        1. Legal Immigration should be inexpensive, fair, with the emphasis on voluntary compliance. The system apparently asks for people to go to the American Consulate or some such and file papers and then hope that after weeks and interminable months they get an answer. Poor people have no access to something like this. And this too is where we need to understand. Immigrants are not going to be the rich-but the poor. For a long time we have created a policy that makes it nearly impossible for working people to come in through the front door. Instead, a person should be able to get papers through the mail, fill them out, have them screened by several different agencies, interpol, and a local police check. If everything checks out, we then issue papers that they can carry with them when they cross the border. At the border, persons with their papers would then be photographed, given a picture ID good for identification and entry.

        Upon  arriving at their destination, they would then get a numbered Social Security Card (special kind separate from regular), have to report their address and other contact information. This is point X, where they can work and have conditional residency. After a certain amount of time, (Point Y), and meeting certain conditions, they become-or have the option to become-permanent residents. After a certain amount of time-and qualifications met, they can automatically become citizens.

        2)Combine visas and citizenship and temporary labor into one organization. Processing and enforcement should be under one roof to simplify both ingress and outgo. This organization would be able to track students, immigrants, and refugees. Simplify and incentives reporting by entrants and the institutions that that deal with them. Reward compliance with privileges and rewards in general.

        3)Eligibility for citizenship should not be based on religion, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, political opinion (as long as its nonviolent). Immigration should not be biased in favor of engineers as opposed to musicians, artists, and other creative types. And as to the latter, fame should not be a qualification for entry either to work or to immigrate.

        4)Children, whether brought here legally or not, have a right to request humane treatment, and a chance to become citizens themselves upon majority and meeting immigration requirements. Abandoned or discarded or orphaned children will be allowed residency until the age of 18. If adopted, their foster/adoptive parents will have the right to unconditional citizenship for them.

        5)Everyone will have a right to an objective hearing and findings of facts if they are adjudicated unworthy-and in a forum that is outside of the agency  if the finding is for deportation. Exceptions will be convicted violent felons and those who have violated international law or otherwise found to be a danger to themselves and others.

        6)Those Fleeing from rape, domestic abuse, honor killings, child exploitation, human trafficking or slavery will be considered refugees on an equal basis as political asylum seekers.

        7)Applicants are entitled to a fast answer to applications, status changes, eligibility questions.
        Initial applications should take no more than 6 months from recieved paperwork to answer.

        A Crushie for Democracy There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and fools.

        by CarolDuhart on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 03:48:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  12 million "create a crisis" for 300 million? (4+ / 0-)

    For those who think undocumented workers are "killing this country" may I respectfully remind them that we have more people (approx. 40 million) without health care?

    We have more people with asthma?

    Number of people is around 10 million (2002).

    I mean, when we start looking at POVERTY we're talking about 40 million people live below the poverty line. (note: my wife who is completing her masters in Public Health corrected me and said she believes the current numbers are closer to 20% - but I don't have a link to her brain :)

    The reality is that it is not illegal immigrants that are causing the crisis in this country's economy.

    It is the mismanagement of our leadership who has decided to take from the have-nots and give to the haves. THAT is where the true problem lies.

    When you pay taxes think about this: your are financing Halliburton, the oil companies, and a mercenary army in Iraq.

    When war is considered to be more noble than peace - we have lost everything.

    by feloneouscat on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 12:50:47 PM PST

  •  I would add some serious focus (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak, Hens Teeth

    on arresting employers who hire illegals, especially on those who exploit them. As long as there are jobs, people will risk their lives to get to them.

    Also, under root causes, look at the agri industry. Because of our subsidies, we have flooded the Mexican market with cheap corn, and Mexican farmers cannot compete. This has ruined small farms in Mexico.

    Vote with your dollars. Purchase shade grown organic Mexican coffee and other things that help establish sustainable agriculture there, so they have less reason to leave.

  •  Roman fell because the Middle & Poor was paying (0+ / 0-)

    More of the tax and the wealthy were getting richer. The immigrants across the water thought they wanted to live like those on the other side.  

    Rome Empire Fell

    not because the immigrants the people failed themselves to stand up. 2007 will we meet the same?

    "Bush always listens to the generals. When he gets tired of listening to them he replaces them. ..." - Wesley Clark.

    by army193 on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:22:38 PM PST

  •  I've been there!!!! I support this reform! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty

    WE must uncover poverty's blanket... it's never a good place to be!

    http://citybeat.com/...

    I support it!

    All of us have to recognize that we owe our children more than we have been giving them. -- Hillary Clinton

    by Peter Deane on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 01:34:06 PM PST

  •  Another item for your "how did they do this" list (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty

    could be the way that the system has been set up to use the working class' retirement and other savings plans against them for the benefit of the investment class. Workers' investment options are often limited to pension plans that don't even let them know exactly where their hard-earned money is being invested. Without a doubt, much of that money is going to companies that operate and lobby against the best interests of workers. If all workers had more control over how their retirement funds were invested, we could change the role we play in our economy from powerless patsy to, if not a powerhouse partner for worker- and environment-friendly industries, at least a thorn in the side of the corrupt "investment class".

  •  Excellent (3+ / 0-)

    I did not think it was too long, thanks for the thoughtful write up, and you made some great points

    "Question Everything"

    by Zomanji on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 03:34:49 PM PST

  •  One big problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak, uscitizenvoter

    What do you do when the calculated number of allowable  immigrants exceeds the number of people who want to come? Experience shows that they will come anyway, so how have we solved anything? There MUST be an enforcement component.

    •  Allowable greater than want to come (0+ / 0-)

      Several things we could do:

      Expedite previous applicants-move them up so many places. Increase number for refugees and political asylum. Allow some who come as tourists to apply for residency.

      A Crushie for Democracy There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and fools.

      by CarolDuhart on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 04:51:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anthony Segredo, Duke1676

    and though long it was the first comprehensive piece I have read. Breaking it up would serve no useful purpose as by the time you got to part 4 you'd have forgotten the initial premis and starting point. Part of the problem you touched on but missed is that fact though wth the huge growth in the Mexican economy only about 100 new millionairs have been created and their wealth is more tightly controlled.

    The other point and a big reason we are having so many economic woes is that we no longer manufacture anything. We have switched to a service industry which more easily allows for the exploitation by corperations. If you don't produce, you have nothing truly to barter or balance defecits with. Hence Unions cannot grow and thrive as they once did.

    I could write more but then my response would end up as long as your diary entry :)

    Words escape me, but deeds are always noticed

    by utopia on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:03:35 PM PST

  •  Great Diary and thoughtful presentation. (4+ / 0-)

    The diary exposes the many hysterical comments and ideas of irrational posters who cry wolf over a phenomenon that has it's historical roots in law and treaties for over 250 years.

    The hysteria to address this crisis is as bogus as the hysteria to address the Social Security crisis. There is no smoke and no fire here.

    It will be the thoughtful analysis of progressive workers and their allies who will reform immigration and not the xenophobes of yesteryear.

    Tu es responsable de ta rose Le Petit Prince

    by Brahman Colorado on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 05:51:51 PM PST

  •  Looks like a good start (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Duke1676

    ... but needs work.

    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.

    Maybe its just my limited knowledge of the situation, but isn't that the idea behind the Department of Justice? And lately I've been a bit sour towards any more entities that are independent of elected government affecting or deciding public policy.

    I want elected government that makes better policy, and am quite willing to work for that instead.

    And your perspective on Conservatism in America is presented through the topic of immigration, but it could just as easily apply to other topics (financial policy, public health policy, foreign policy)

  •  It's a serious, and seriously good, plan. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuco35, Duke1676, Dianna, mariachi mama

    Duke 1676 does us some huge favors here. One is rationalizing the terms of debate: he advocates using economic measures to determine how many new workers should be allowed into the country and de-politicizing the process as much as possible the way the Federal Reserve classically does the function of a central bank. Another is holding firm to an important principle, that in this democracy the workers must be citizens, so that they can exercise their full economic rights.

    I might tinker around the edges of the proposal, requiring for instance that the economic measures that determine the admission of new immigrants prioritize year-on-year changes in hourly wages, after inflation. So that in an inflationary labor market, new people are admitted more readily than in a deflationary one like the one we are living in now. Those companies which would then most want to increase the numbers of new immigrants can then help the process along, by giving all their workers in the United States raises.

    But in the end, if I were a member of Congress I would vote for Duke1676's plan.

  •  immigration is fine, but not something "we need" (0+ / 0-)

    what a riduluous premise to begin with - no point reading beyond that.

    this country has a positive birth rate and rising productivity. the only sense in which "we need" immigration is in that "we need" millions of foreign workers to be exploited so that our fat standard of living can be just that much fatter.

    Newsday: Rudy Giuliani missing in action for Iraq panel

    by jethropalerobber on Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 10:53:10 PM PST

  •  I have to add that those who (4+ / 0-)

    freeped this poll, with over 400 respondents who are too fucking lazy to read for 20 minutes or have closed minds, but if the poll is a true representation of DKos, then we are fucked.

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Duke1676, Dianna

      Too bad that the reasonable PARTY is starting to sound like Republicans when it comes to immigration. I we keep shifting to the right regarding immigration, the problem will never be solved. This problem will never go away. When children are envolved, you have to find a sensible fare solution, not fear mongering and division.

  •  Fantastic Diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Duke1676, Dianna

    Worth the time to read.  I especially like your idea for a policy board in DC to assess quotas on a yearly basis, based on economic indicators.  The quota system right now is completely outdated and inflexible.  And the people in the room when immigration policy is debated are always, always the wrong people--on such a complex, divisive issue, it should be former administrators, judges, and experienced advocates.  You have to know what you are talking about on this topic to fix it.

  •  Friend, you need to edit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobOak

    Make your points succintly. This is a blog, not an essay contest.

    A+ for effort, C for execution.

    "We already won the war, it's the occupation that's killing us."

    by cal in cali on Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 09:09:44 AM PST

  •  Democrats Choking on their own swords (0+ / 0-)

    The progressive plan should be to stop supporting amnesty and driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Hillary Clinton doomed herself for supporting Spitzer's insane idea to hand out licenses to illegal aliens. The problem all the Democratic candidates have is that they all want amnesty, and they all want to hand out driver's licenses to illegals who are drunks, rapists, murders, thugs, and terrorists. Until these "progressives" change their attitudes, the American public will give their votes to somebody else.

    So far all I have seen from progressives are plans for the suicide of the Democratic party. When are you guys going to get a brain?

  •  Call in and check out our show (0+ / 0-)

    Call in and check out our interview tonight at 8pm EST with Ray Buchanan, founder and president of the Stop Hunger Now organization and veteran actor John Mahon on thirdrailradio.com

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site