While I am all for increased immigration, and pro-amnesty, I think the phrase 'jobs Americans won't do' is a poor argument and obviously incorrect. Of course Americans will do any job, for enough money. Now, for lots of reasons it may not be smart to pay as much as it would cost Americans to do the work, but it is a valuable option. Rather then going on about 'jobs Americans won't do' I think pro-immigration advocates would be better served simply arguing that immigrants provide many economic benefits, which is much more accurate.
Dave, I guess it would be more accurate to say "jobs Americans won't do at the present paying rate". But the going rate actually part of the problem. I guess I'll show my hand and say that the presence of illegal immigrants undermines wages overall and that's why we need to find a solution - but as teh anecdote from reason blog shows, simply eliminating illegals wont fill the labor void. Hence I dont think its innacurate to shorthand it as Jobs Americans Wont Do (JAWD) and I intend to continue using that term.
I have read that the use of illegal immigrants in agriculture has discouraged the development and use of machinery in applications where it is much cheaper to hire an undocumented worker than make investments. If we are paying less for food at the cost of propping up a "slave labor" market, then...
Second, it is a little deceitful to claim that "due process" is a barrier because of court time when the bulk of illegal immigration cases would likely be referred (just like any other plea agreement) to INS/ICE in lieu of prosection for either direct deportation or a deportation hearing. Although defense attourneys might adopt full blown court cases as a way to gum up the works or make a political point.
I have read that the use of illegal immigrants in agriculture has discouraged the development and use of machinery in applications where it is much cheaper to hire an undocumented worker than make investments.
thats probably true, bt its also probably true that no amount of machinery can ever truly replace 100% of the work that is required for farm labor. If you've ever seen someone pick strawberries you;ll know exactly what I mean. Machines work great fr things like wheat but for fruit and other delicate produce, it's just not going to happen anytime soon (at least until we get AI).
Second, it is a little deceitful to claim that "due process" is a barrier because of court time when the bulk of illegal immigration cases would likely be referred (just like any other plea agreement) to INS/ICE in lieu of prosection for either direct deportation or a deportation hearing.
thanks for calling me deceitful.
To answer your point, keep in mind that even a simple thing like a referral you describe still requires filing a form, and some non-zero number of billable hours of legal activity. Multiply that by 12 million. It just won't scale.
If there is a labor shortage due to the elimination of illegal immigration, there is an easy fix, increase legal immigration.
Eliminating illegal immigration is not about reducing the number of immigrats to this country, though it would certainly have that effect in the short term, but about eliminating the growing underclass.
Illegal immigration allows for a disconnect between the legal minimum wage and the real minimum wage, it allows companies to go around labor laws and essentially creates a labor force that the rules do not apply to.
It some cases this points to flaws in those laws in that there are a number of jobs where the costs of following the labor laws are too high. In other cases it prevents jobs from being what they legally should be.
I'm all for increasing legal immigration, which I think would have to be done if we were to limit or eliminate illegal immigration, but I don't see why people argue that we should continue to allow people and companies to go around the laws that we establich for workers in this country. Either those laws are good and should be enforced or they need to be changed or eliminated, but there shouldn't be two rules, one for the poor that sneak into or overstay in the country and the other for those that are born or legally immigrate.
in addition to the filing of a form, there must presumably be some legwork investigation on whether or not someone provably entered by illegal means. again, it won't scale.
as to whether or not low-wage earners (here modeled as high school dropouts) have seen their wages depressed by illegal immigrants, kevin drum via ezra klein writes about some data on that score:
Though overstaying a visa is indeed not a crime (when crime is defined as requiring a fine or jail time), it is against the law and anyone who overstays their visa is subject to removal and if the visa has been overstayed by more than 365 days, reentry is barred for 10 years. (I.e., overstaying a visa is a removable offense)
For me, that overstaying is not a "crime" though "punishable" by removal is a distinction without a difference as removal is my desired punishment.
A couple important notes:
1) In removal hearings (see page 3-4 in the linked article), normal due process rights are not accorded and the burden of proof is actually on the alien.
2) Reentry after removal is a crime (an example of illegal entry) unless proper restitution has been made (typically staying out of the country for a period of time.)
My two cents: We actually shouldn't make illegal presence a crime as that would slow down removal of illegal aliens and bog down the judicial system.
Key things to remember 1) illegal presence is not a crime (Tancredo's wording is correct)
2) The fact that illegal presence is not a crime makes it easier to deport someone who overstays their visa (also allows us to toss out illegal immigrants not caught in the act of illegal entry).
3) The government isn't trying very hard to remove those whose presence is illegal. This holds across all levels though I'm looking hardest at you, San Francisco.
ken, nice bon mot but please stop with the cutesy and re-read Jody's comment. this is a serious topic, not something befitting bumper sticker boilerplate.
it isn't an either/or. i guess implicit in my statement was that legal immigration is "immigration," and that illegal immigration is something else. I would maintain that it is a symptom not of me but of the debate that the difference need be broadcast in words.
But back to your question, in my opinion, a low barrier to legal immigration is in fact a significant barrier in and of itself to illegal immigration. there was some discussion of this in an earlier immigration thread here, but there was a time period in the 60s when texas had very successful temp. worker programs where illegal immigration there was virtually nil. there just wasn't a need for it. On that point I am (as I so often am) in agreement with Fareed Zakaria that temporary worker programs with paths to citizenship are our best bet for low-skilled immigrant-hopefuls. Coupled maybe with a separate, accelerated path to citizenship based on u.s. military service.
I'm convinced that there's no way the current apparatus for legal immigration can handle the number of people who want to come to this country. It's a shambolic mess, very slow for no good reason, unfriendly and arbitrary, and mired in layers and layers of rules very few people actually understand. We've worked around all those failings by simply ignoring a lot of illegal immigration. I don't think we'd be happy with the results if we choose to rely even more heavily on a system that's already in pretty bad shape.
zach/Bryan, I'm in line with both your thinking on this. I think we shoudl adopt a path-to-citizenship program that is unencumbered by quota, ie a regulated but open stream. However, we also need to ensure that these workers are legally entitled to the exact same job protections and wages that an ordinary worker receives. The net result of this would probably mean higher prices ofr lettuce as Ken so breezily snarked above - and houses, and a lot of other things. But the long term payoff would be tremendous in terms of creating new citizens and in raising the tide.
Most pro.anti immigration people wanbt an easy fix. I think there isnt one; the solution above means that an artifically low wage bubble will burst and that prices of a lot of things will go up.
As already pointed out, they are not entitled to due process, as deportation of a non-citizen is not a criminal punishment.
Sorry, Aziz, you wasted a lot of space and a few breathless bold tags on another strawman.
Is Mexico to be abandoned? Is its status for the 21st century to simply be how much wealth it can leech off the U.S.? The only way to encourage the people of Mexico to reform their country is to make that their best option, not illegally jumping our border.
And, given the more and more frequent protests in favor of (utterly impractical) reconquista, I'm feeling that quite the reverse, the annexation of Mexico is going to be the end result.
could you give examples of the more and more frequent protests? Aside from the one everyone denounced a year or so ago, I haven't heard about any others. Also, how do you feel about NAFTA?
Has it occurred to anyone that the "low wages Americans won't work for" are so low as to be illegal? You're essentially advocating slave wages for a slave class.
While the grey market in illegal immigrant labor does allow for employers to take horrible advantage of their workers, many illegals do in fact recieve more then the minimum wage, and thus would be legally employable at the same rates.
I would guess that for employers it would be overall about a wash if easily availible legal immigrant labor subject to all of our laws of course, where to replace the grey market employment for illegals we have not. For those who it would be a loss, I have no tears for and that is one reason I support the removal of immigration quotas as the center piece to fighting illegal immigration.
John you're being silly. They may not technically be "entitled" to due process but there's no way around giving it to them anyway--you have to make the determination that they are non-citizens before you can just chuck them out of the country. Unless you figure we should have government agents who can just start randomonly declaring people non-citizens on their own recognizance and chucking them out the door?
(Full disclosure: my stepdad was border patrol and eventually made his way up to Assistant Director level at the INS in Texas, and my brother is an ICE agent.)
Kevin, I'm pleased to be able to agree with you on this. By any moral assessment, illegal immigration is fundamentally exploitative, and undermines the protections that the American worker has so painstakingly won to raise themselves from informal slavery. The solution is to broaden the protections for all.
Dave, you claim,
many illegals do in fact recieve more then the minimum wage, and thus would be legally employable at the same rates.
do you have evidence or a citation for what fraction of illegals receive more than min wage?
They may not technically be "entitled" to due process but there's no way around giving it to them anyway
Confirming identity, or lack of same, is a lot different than what Aziz and myself both referred to. We do not have to give them trials, juries, any of that. And we shouldn't.
First thing is to secure the border, of course. That and telling the Mexican government that if so many of their people are going to continue voting with their feet to become Americans, we might as well add the extra land for them to live on. Save them the trouble of walking.
All of this is why I am somewhat confused by the stances and claims often made by both sides on this issue. It almost seems backward from what I would expect.
Fighting to support illegal immigration is championed by those who usually champion the cause of the workers, yet illegal immigration is clearly creating a second class of worker that is easily exploitable because they are hired and working outside of the law.
On the other hand, those fighting to eliminate illegal immigration are the ones who typically champion the businesses, yet by eliminating this underclass of worker, businesses will suffer as their labor costs will increase.
Like I said, it seems backwards.
It is my opinion that this mess has been created by both sides of the political spectrum attempting to work around the laws they disagree with.
Many of the labor laws in this country are overly burdensome on several businesses which has been avoided by hiring illegals, thus creating an underclass of worker that is not protected and is therefore far cheaper to employ (though either reduced pay, benefits, or increased hours and harsher working conditions).
At the same time, we have a working underclass that is far better off in this country than they are in their own country. So we have a win-win situation for politicians, or at least we have had one until now.
We have been enjoying labor laws that artificially elevate the labor price for citizens of this country while at the same time enjoying the cheaper labor from non-citizens. Both sides have ample material to spin this situation into a win for their political beliefs.
It, however, does not come without problems and those problems have grown enough to be getting the attention of a large enough number of people that something is going to have to change.
As I said earlier, I certainly don't want to restrict immigration into this country. Immigration reduces the price of labor and we certainly have a need for immigrant labor. On the other hand, illegal immigration allows people to be taken advantage of while allowing us to artificially inflate the labor costs of citizens.
I'm not arguing that all illegals are explioted. Indeed many of them have found ways to explout the system themselves. The problem is that we have a large number of people working outside both the protections and the restrictions of the law which greatly increases corruption in both directions.
And that's not even going into the security issues involved in not properly limiting access to this country.
I don't want to get rid of immigrants. I want to trade illegal immigrants for legal ones.
Aziz, how do you broaden the protections for people who don't want any of the government agencies knowing they are here?
With carrots and sticks. (Carrot = those protections; Stick = Employer enforcement + wider use of deportation of those who don't meet the agencies' requirements)
While not every illegal (and illegal employer) would go along with any plan, presumably many will (with the properly crafted plan). Also as the problem lies in the magnitude of the illegal population and not its existence per se, no solution has to be perfect in order to be good.
Random related aside: I would really prefer the mechanization of farm labor to continued reliance on manually intensive methods. Long term, it'll be vastly superior for the world economy. Towards that end, farm labor mechanization is closer than you would think. (Unless, of course, you had previously seen that article.)
its still not going to happen timescale relevant to the present political debate.
What's the timescale you had in mind? Seeing as we've been mucking around with illegal immigration since the 80s, I think it will eventually factor in.
In other words, I think we agree that it'll be 5-10 years before robotic fruit pickers become commercially successful (ala roomba), but I think we'll still be dealing with illegal immigration in 5-10 years.
I should add that I don't think that this is a special feature of illegal immigration, it's more a feature of democracy in general. See social security, welfare reform, health care or any other domestic issue that's come up in the last couple of decades. Foreign affairs tend to eventually resolve themselves, but that's partly because of interaction with non-democracies where probems can be resolved when key actors die (e.g., relations with Cuba will probably be shloads better once Fidel and Raul die).
Can we please, just to begin with, stop mischaracterizing illegal aliens as "immigrants"? They're not immigrants. They're illegal aliens. And the distinction is critical.
Aziz: sorry, poor wording (meant something like misleading; more a hyperbole than untruth). The number of illegal aliens is not disconnected from the current (failure of) enforcement climate. American politics in the past has caused illegal immigration to swell (associated with past relaxation of restrictions, i.e. amnesty).
A novel idea: enforce the law, and (1) those considering illegal immigration as a way to get out of their economic situation will know they have a chance of being held accountable, (2) those currently here illegally will be encouraged to leave, particularly those who think of their visit as a way to strike it rich before they return to their home. I predict that if there were repercussions for illegal immigration, the 12 million would shrink to a much smaller number without prosecutorial effort.
A couple of years ago there was INS action in Nebraska that caused a major U.S. company problems. The company responded by calling their Congressman, who managed to stifle the effort. In the town where I live, a Mexican restaurant has now been shutdown twice in 2 years for immigration violations. Each shutdown costs the owners a couple of grand a day in expenses that don't stop when the restaurant is not operating, and takes from 10 days to a month to reopen. This is a major incentive for the business to stay legal. I expect compliance with the law is looking more attractive.
_______________________
Just read in a local campus paper, CDC says 1/2 of all tuberculosis cases from foreign nationals is increasing, with 1/2 coming from 5 countries led by Mexico. A few weeks ago there were 131 immigrant cases in a poultry plant in S.C. One infection exposes about 10 people. They make the obvious point that illegal immigrants (do Mexican trcuk drivers?) do not get screening for diseases.
Note communicable diseases and trends in Mexico
the-backpacking-site.com says (about Mexico):
You are recommended to obtain Polio and Typhoid vaccinations before traveling to Mexico. Malaria, carried by mosquitoes, is also present in some rural areas so cover up and avoid being bitten. Finally, Rabies and Cholera have not been eradicated...
No, Zach, they're just residing here. They have not immigrated; they have entered the country illegally and are residing here illegally. They are illegal aliens, not usa citizens.
In fact, by your given reasoning, not only is everyone in the usa an 'immigrant', including you and I alike, but so are most plants and animals.
No, Zach. Actual immigrants make an actual decision to actually participate in the actual immigration process -- including classes, or at least testing, on the why and how of usa politics and other civic matters, english proficiency, and a sworn legal oath to uphold the Constitution, abandon all other national allegiances, serve in military or civil capacities when legally required, and so on.
And as for your failure to see how the distinction is at all critical to the debate, I suggest that you try harder to perceive it.
when you feel like engaging in a little good faith in this debate, please be sure to let me know. as it stands i don't know how you could possibly have twisted my words more fully or given me less benefit of the doubt.
Zach, taking your words at exact face value is neither 'bad faith' nor 'twisting' them nor 'denying you the benefit of the doubt'. I have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt to induce or deduce what you meant to say, really, nor are you entitled to expect it of me.
So, again, no, Zach -- if you don't like getting your hand virtually slapped for the conceptual counterpart of poor penmanship, then I further suggest that you make more of an effort to express yourself better.
Cleaning up your communicative sloppiness is neither my responsibility nor desire. If you want to be treated more like an adult, try speaking more like one.
as i think was clear from my original comment, anyone who moves here from another country with the intent to settle permanently is an immigrant. i was clearly not referring to native born citizens or plants and animals. failing to extend me enough benefit of the doubt to assume that i understand the basic definition of immigration is, in my view, the height of bad faith. it is not only polite, but healthful to a debate to assume that your colleagues are at least as perspicacious as yourself, and failing to extend that good faith only serves to make you come across as childish.
as to communication skills: you assert, sans discussion, that somehow the distinction between the terms illegal alien and illegal immigrant is central and critical to the debate going on here. as if somehow people will sit up and think: "oh my god, illegal ALIENS! of course! it all makes sense now!" while we are all working on our communications skills, perhaps you could clarify exactly what you meant in stating that the distinction is critical.
Again, Zach, if they do not go through the proper legal process, it simply does not matter what their 'intention' is; they are not immigrants. They are illegal aliens. Abstract subjective 'intention' does not trump concrete objective reality, and the concrete objective reality of the matter is that, again, actual immigrants make an actual decision to actually participate in the actual immigration process -- including classes, or at least testing, on the why and how of usa politics and other civic matters, english proficiency, and a sworn legal oath to uphold the Constitution, abandon all other national allegiances, serve in military or civil capacities when legally required, and so on.
And your just ignoring that is not going to make it go away, let alone prevent it from being the concrete objective reality.
We intactivists get this nonsense all the time in debate, and it's every bit as untrue there as well -- just as 'intention' does not make genital mutilation stop being genital mutilation, neither does 'intention' make illegal residence stop being illegal residence. It is the facts which make prepucectomy either genital mutilation or genital surgery, not people's abstract subjective intentions.
In much the same way, you can 'think' whatever you want, but it's not going to change the facts of the matter. And the facts of the matter are that you failed to express yourself clearly. And, again, if you don't like being called to account for such behavior, I suggest that you refrain from engaging in it, and instead put in sufficient effort to express your thoughts clearly and cogently.
Of course, if they still get trashed after that, it's fair to conclude that more effort was needed in terms of the original thinking involved.
As to your airy hand-waving baseless assertions about politeness and 'health' in debate, they merit no more than my standard response to such attempts by others to guilt-trip me into submission:
No; I don't like your behavior; you change to suit my personal preferences.
As to my clarifying anything, I will first need you to clarify whether you are a group mind of some kind, or whatever other justification you may for referring to yourself in the plural, or whether you have grossly misrepresented my comments about communicative performance as being directed to anyone other than yourself, solely and exclusively.
Because if it's the latter, which I'm pretty sure it is, then you're still directly proving, through your own actions, my point about the lack of maturity in your behavior, and I therefore perceive the same continuing need for the demonstration of an increase in such before I can be bothered to take you seriously.
Get it, kiddo? You don't get to make demands of me anymore than the average child or infantilized woman or male wuss does. Because people like that are not my 'colleagues' in the first place.
They are, at best, and only if they're fortunate, my pupils.
you are correct that the 'we' was not royal, but rather including you, me, and no one else. you claim it is not your inclination nor intention to make any effort to read into someone's comment what is not explicitly there. okay. but when the sword is turned back at you, where your initial comment was not clear to me it is suddenly audacious of me to not read into your comment what was not explicitly there, and furthermore offensive to display my profound ignorance by asking a question i was genuinely interested in the answer to. you hector me about my behavior in being so monumentally stupid as to ask for clarification, yet my complaints about your own are suddenly out of bounds.
as you wish, though, i'll stop the lecture here. clearly you so highly value yourself and your own opinions that engaging you further would amount to masturbation at best.
9.13.2007 9:35am
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
I have read that the use of illegal immigrants in agriculture has discouraged the development and use of machinery in applications where it is much cheaper to hire an undocumented worker than make investments. If we are paying less for food at the cost of propping up a "slave labor" market, then...
Second, it is a little deceitful to claim that "due process" is a barrier because of court time when the bulk of illegal immigration cases would likely be referred (just like any other plea agreement) to INS/ICE in lieu of prosection for either direct deportation or a deportation hearing. Although defense attourneys might adopt full blown court cases as a way to gum up the works or make a political point.
thats probably true, bt its also probably true that no amount of machinery can ever truly replace 100% of the work that is required for farm labor. If you've ever seen someone pick strawberries you;ll know exactly what I mean. Machines work great fr things like wheat but for fruit and other delicate produce, it's just not going to happen anytime soon (at least until we get AI).
thanks for calling me deceitful.
To answer your point, keep in mind that even a simple thing like a referral you describe still requires filing a form, and some non-zero number of billable hours of legal activity. Multiply that by 12 million. It just won't scale.
Eliminating illegal immigration is not about reducing the number of immigrats to this country, though it would certainly have that effect in the short term, but about eliminating the growing underclass.
Illegal immigration allows for a disconnect between the legal minimum wage and the real minimum wage, it allows companies to go around labor laws and essentially creates a labor force that the rules do not apply to.
It some cases this points to flaws in those laws in that there are a number of jobs where the costs of following the labor laws are too high. In other cases it prevents jobs from being what they legally should be.
I'm all for increasing legal immigration, which I think would have to be done if we were to limit or eliminate illegal immigration, but I don't see why people argue that we should continue to allow people and companies to go around the laws that we establich for workers in this country. Either those laws are good and should be enforced or they need to be changed or eliminated, but there shouldn't be two rules, one for the poor that sneak into or overstay in the country and the other for those that are born or legally immigrate.
in addition to the filing of a form, there must presumably be some legwork investigation on whether or not someone provably entered by illegal means. again, it won't scale.
as to whether or not low-wage earners (here modeled as high school dropouts) have seen their wages depressed by illegal immigrants, kevin drum via ezra klein writes about some data on that score:
link.
I think that is exactly right. We should be talking about lowering barriers to immigration, not raising them.
See this article for more.
For me, that overstaying is not a "crime" though "punishable" by removal is a distinction without a difference as removal is my desired punishment.
A couple important notes:
1) In removal hearings (see page 3-4 in the linked article), normal due process rights are not accorded and the burden of proof is actually on the alien.
2) Reentry after removal is a crime (an example of illegal entry) unless proper restitution has been made (typically staying out of the country for a period of time.)
My two cents: We actually shouldn't make illegal presence a crime as that would slow down removal of illegal aliens and bog down the judicial system.
Key things to remember
1) illegal presence is not a crime (Tancredo's wording is correct)
2) The fact that illegal presence is not a crime makes it easier to deport someone who overstays their visa (also allows us to toss out illegal immigrants not caught in the act of illegal entry).
3) The government isn't trying very hard to remove those whose presence is illegal. This holds across all levels though I'm looking hardest at you, San Francisco.
How about lowering barriers to legal immigration and raising barriers to illegal immigration? Why does this have to be an either/or?
. . . for cheaper lettuce?
it isn't an either/or. i guess implicit in my statement was that legal immigration is "immigration," and that illegal immigration is something else. I would maintain that it is a symptom not of me but of the debate that the difference need be broadcast in words.
But back to your question, in my opinion, a low barrier to legal immigration is in fact a significant barrier in and of itself to illegal immigration. there was some discussion of this in an earlier immigration thread here, but there was a time period in the 60s when texas had very successful temp. worker programs where illegal immigration there was virtually nil. there just wasn't a need for it. On that point I am (as I so often am) in agreement with Fareed Zakaria that temporary worker programs with paths to citizenship are our best bet for low-skilled immigrant-hopefuls. Coupled maybe with a separate, accelerated path to citizenship based on u.s. military service.
Most pro.anti immigration people wanbt an easy fix. I think there isnt one; the solution above means that an artifically low wage bubble will burst and that prices of a lot of things will go up.
Sorry, Aziz, you wasted a lot of space and a few breathless bold tags on another strawman.
Is Mexico to be abandoned? Is its status for the 21st century to simply be how much wealth it can leech off the U.S.? The only way to encourage the people of Mexico to reform their country is to make that their best option, not illegally jumping our border.
And, given the more and more frequent protests in favor of (utterly impractical) reconquista, I'm feeling that quite the reverse, the annexation of Mexico is going to be the end result.
could you give examples of the more and more frequent protests? Aside from the one everyone denounced a year or so ago, I haven't heard about any others. Also, how do you feel about NAFTA?
No duh Americans won't do that work.
While the grey market in illegal immigrant labor does allow for employers to take horrible advantage of their workers, many illegals do in fact recieve more then the minimum wage, and thus would be legally employable at the same rates.
I would guess that for employers it would be overall about a wash if easily availible legal immigrant labor subject to all of our laws of course, where to replace the grey market employment for illegals we have not. For those who it would be a loss, I have no tears for and that is one reason I support the removal of immigration quotas as the center piece to fighting illegal immigration.
(Full disclosure: my stepdad was border patrol and eventually made his way up to Assistant Director level at the INS in Texas, and my brother is an ICE agent.)
Dave, you claim,
do you have evidence or a citation for what fraction of illegals receive more than min wage?
Confirming identity, or lack of same, is a lot different than what Aziz and myself both referred to. We do not have to give them trials, juries, any of that. And we shouldn't.
First thing is to secure the border, of course. That and telling the Mexican government that if so many of their people are going to continue voting with their feet to become Americans, we might as well add the extra land for them to live on. Save them the trouble of walking.
Aziz, how do you broaden the protections for people who don't want any of the government agencies knowing they are here?
It's going to take something radical to solve the problem of illegal immigration.
Fighting to support illegal immigration is championed by those who usually champion the cause of the workers, yet illegal immigration is clearly creating a second class of worker that is easily exploitable because they are hired and working outside of the law.
On the other hand, those fighting to eliminate illegal immigration are the ones who typically champion the businesses, yet by eliminating this underclass of worker, businesses will suffer as their labor costs will increase.
Like I said, it seems backwards.
It is my opinion that this mess has been created by both sides of the political spectrum attempting to work around the laws they disagree with.
Many of the labor laws in this country are overly burdensome on several businesses which has been avoided by hiring illegals, thus creating an underclass of worker that is not protected and is therefore far cheaper to employ (though either reduced pay, benefits, or increased hours and harsher working conditions).
At the same time, we have a working underclass that is far better off in this country than they are in their own country. So we have a win-win situation for politicians, or at least we have had one until now.
We have been enjoying labor laws that artificially elevate the labor price for citizens of this country while at the same time enjoying the cheaper labor from non-citizens. Both sides have ample material to spin this situation into a win for their political beliefs.
It, however, does not come without problems and those problems have grown enough to be getting the attention of a large enough number of people that something is going to have to change.
As I said earlier, I certainly don't want to restrict immigration into this country. Immigration reduces the price of labor and we certainly have a need for immigrant labor. On the other hand, illegal immigration allows people to be taken advantage of while allowing us to artificially inflate the labor costs of citizens.
I'm not arguing that all illegals are explioted. Indeed many of them have found ways to explout the system themselves. The problem is that we have a large number of people working outside both the protections and the restrictions of the law which greatly increases corruption in both directions.
And that's not even going into the security issues involved in not properly limiting access to this country.
I don't want to get rid of immigrants. I want to trade illegal immigrants for legal ones.
-Aaron
With carrots and sticks. (Carrot = those protections; Stick = Employer enforcement + wider use of deportation of those who don't meet the agencies' requirements)
While not every illegal (and illegal employer) would go along with any plan, presumably many will (with the properly crafted plan). Also as the problem lies in the magnitude of the illegal population and not its existence per se, no solution has to be perfect in order to be good.
Random related aside: I would really prefer the mechanization of farm labor to continued reliance on manually intensive methods. Long term, it'll be vastly superior for the world economy. Towards that end, farm labor mechanization is closer than you would think. (Unless, of course, you had previously seen that article.)
What's the timescale you had in mind? Seeing as we've been mucking around with illegal immigration since the 80s, I think it will eventually factor in.
In other words, I think we agree that it'll be 5-10 years before robotic fruit pickers become commercially successful (ala roomba), but I think we'll still be dealing with illegal immigration in 5-10 years.
I should add that I don't think that this is a special feature of illegal immigration, it's more a feature of democracy in general. See social security, welfare reform, health care or any other domestic issue that's come up in the last couple of decades. Foreign affairs tend to eventually resolve themselves, but that's partly because of interaction with non-democracies where probems can be resolved when key actors die (e.g., relations with Cuba will probably be shloads better once Fidel and Raul die).
A novel idea: enforce the law, and (1) those considering illegal immigration as a way to get out of their economic situation will know they have a chance of being held accountable, (2) those currently here illegally will be encouraged to leave, particularly those who think of their visit as a way to strike it rich before they return to their home. I predict that if there were repercussions for illegal immigration, the 12 million would shrink to a much smaller number without prosecutorial effort.
A couple of years ago there was INS action in Nebraska that caused a major U.S. company problems. The company responded by calling their Congressman, who managed to stifle the effort. In the town where I live, a Mexican restaurant has now been shutdown twice in 2 years for immigration violations. Each shutdown costs the owners a couple of grand a day in expenses that don't stop when the restaurant is not operating, and takes from 10 days to a month to reopen. This is a major incentive for the business to stay legal. I expect compliance with the law is looking more attractive.
_______________________
Just read in a local campus paper, CDC says 1/2 of all tuberculosis cases from foreign nationals is increasing, with 1/2 coming from 5 countries led by Mexico. A few weeks ago there were 131 immigrant cases in a poultry plant in S.C. One infection exposes about 10 people. They make the obvious point that illegal immigrants (do Mexican trcuk drivers?) do not get screening for diseases.
Note communicable diseases and trends in Mexico
the-backpacking-site.com says (about Mexico):
Illegal immigration poses health risks.
if they are living here permanently then they are immigrants. furthermore i fail to see how the distinction is at all critical to the debate.
In fact, by your given reasoning, not only is everyone in the usa an 'immigrant', including you and I alike, but so are most plants and animals.
No, Zach. Actual immigrants make an actual decision to actually participate in the actual immigration process -- including classes, or at least testing, on the why and how of usa politics and other civic matters, english proficiency, and a sworn legal oath to uphold the Constitution, abandon all other national allegiances, serve in military or civil capacities when legally required, and so on.
And as for your failure to see how the distinction is at all critical to the debate, I suggest that you try harder to perceive it.
when you feel like engaging in a little good faith in this debate, please be sure to let me know. as it stands i don't know how you could possibly have twisted my words more fully or given me less benefit of the doubt.
So, again, no, Zach -- if you don't like getting your hand virtually slapped for the conceptual counterpart of poor penmanship, then I further suggest that you make more of an effort to express yourself better.
Cleaning up your communicative sloppiness is neither my responsibility nor desire. If you want to be treated more like an adult, try speaking more like one.
as i think was clear from my original comment, anyone who moves here from another country with the intent to settle permanently is an immigrant. i was clearly not referring to native born citizens or plants and animals. failing to extend me enough benefit of the doubt to assume that i understand the basic definition of immigration is, in my view, the height of bad faith. it is not only polite, but healthful to a debate to assume that your colleagues are at least as perspicacious as yourself, and failing to extend that good faith only serves to make you come across as childish.
as to communication skills: you assert, sans discussion, that somehow the distinction between the terms illegal alien and illegal immigrant is central and critical to the debate going on here. as if somehow people will sit up and think: "oh my god, illegal ALIENS! of course! it all makes sense now!" while we are all working on our communications skills, perhaps you could clarify exactly what you meant in stating that the distinction is critical.
And your just ignoring that is not going to make it go away, let alone prevent it from being the concrete objective reality.
We intactivists get this nonsense all the time in debate, and it's every bit as untrue there as well -- just as 'intention' does not make genital mutilation stop being genital mutilation, neither does 'intention' make illegal residence stop being illegal residence. It is the facts which make prepucectomy either genital mutilation or genital surgery, not people's abstract subjective intentions.
In much the same way, you can 'think' whatever you want, but it's not going to change the facts of the matter. And the facts of the matter are that you failed to express yourself clearly. And, again, if you don't like being called to account for such behavior, I suggest that you refrain from engaging in it, and instead put in sufficient effort to express your thoughts clearly and cogently.
Of course, if they still get trashed after that, it's fair to conclude that more effort was needed in terms of the original thinking involved.
As to your airy hand-waving baseless assertions about politeness and 'health' in debate, they merit no more than my standard response to such attempts by others to guilt-trip me into submission:
No; I don't like your behavior; you change to suit my personal preferences.
As to my clarifying anything, I will first need you to clarify whether you are a group mind of some kind, or whatever other justification you may for referring to yourself in the plural, or whether you have grossly misrepresented my comments about communicative performance as being directed to anyone other than yourself, solely and exclusively.
Because if it's the latter, which I'm pretty sure it is, then you're still directly proving, through your own actions, my point about the lack of maturity in your behavior, and I therefore perceive the same continuing need for the demonstration of an increase in such before I can be bothered to take you seriously.
Get it, kiddo? You don't get to make demands of me anymore than the average child or infantilized woman or male wuss does. Because people like that are not my 'colleagues' in the first place.
They are, at best, and only if they're fortunate, my pupils.
you are correct that the 'we' was not royal, but rather including you, me, and no one else. you claim it is not your inclination nor intention to make any effort to read into someone's comment what is not explicitly there. okay. but when the sword is turned back at you, where your initial comment was not clear to me it is suddenly audacious of me to not read into your comment what was not explicitly there, and furthermore offensive to display my profound ignorance by asking a question i was genuinely interested in the answer to. you hector me about my behavior in being so monumentally stupid as to ask for clarification, yet my complaints about your own are suddenly out of bounds.
as you wish, though, i'll stop the lecture here. clearly you so highly value yourself and your own opinions that engaging you further would amount to masturbation at best.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.