Debate Immigration With Fareed Zakaria

Fareed Zakaria's Daily Show appearance the other night made me want to write a post about some of his contentions, presumably sparking a lively and interesting debate. But I wasn't sure how well doing an entire post on a Daily Show interview would go over, so I chickened out.

Conveniently, Zakaria also wrote a column for this very paper raising some of those same points. In general, Zakaria bases his arguments on the premise that, Mexico aside, America has quite successful immigration policies already. I've outlined two of his ideas here, but read the piece for the detailed analysis.

1. Immigrant communities in the United States do not tend toward radicalism. On this of all issues, why would we move toward the French model -- deportations, penalties and guest worker programs -- when the recent riots prove it to be a deeply flawed system?

2. The United States and Mexico have the largest wealth disparity of any two contiguous countries: one has an abundance of demand for labor; the other, an abundant supply. A smart immigration policy would recognize that reality and expand the avenues for legal immigration.

Blogger TC the Terrible believes these lawful paths to citizenship already exist -- illegal immigrants just aren't using them. But are there enough such paths to fill the demand?

Blueberry Tofu blogger Jeff Haught says a guest worker program with no path to citizenship leaves immigrants feeling like third class citizens. Because they have no vested interest in the country, Jeff argues, these immigrants are kind of like a person renting a house. He'll pay the rent, but he has no real incentive to take good care of the place.

For more from Zakaria -- including the assertion that the 1980s amnesty worked -- read on ...

A few controversial points Zakaria made in the interview with Jon Stewart:

A. We have somewhere around 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. No democracy would deport all these people, and we certainly won't.

B. The notion that illegal immigrants are prone to crime (beyond their immigration status) is unfounded; they know that as soon as the authorities catch them breaking the law, they'll be deported.

C. The mass amnesty granted under President Reagan worked -- just look at all the economic growth since then, and the way these immigrants have successfully become part of the fabric of American society.

Debaters, if you're not sick of the immigration issue yet, I'd love to get your thoughts on these ideas.

By Emily Messner |  April 4, 2006; 7:09 PM ET  | Category:  Issue Updates
Previous: Gas Prices Around the World | Next: Are We Serious About Ending Our Addiction?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I agree with Zakaria's points. The number of illegal immigrants supposedly in this country and working shows that the numbers we allow in legally are woefully low.

Some businesses benefit as far as low wages and benefits go by keeping them illegal. This hurts native born workers.

The argument that higher wages will hurt the consumer is bogus as lower wages and benefits hurt as much or more. The only thing that increases with low wage workers is higher profits, both here and abroad.

Posted by: Dan | April 4, 2006 08:00 PM

I was researching blue collar wage trends and came across two fascinating articles:

http://www.gatewaycities.org/images/pdfs/Profile_21st_century_report.pdf

and

http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/Denver_Reseg.pdf

Unfortunately, neither one paints a very rosy picture. Dropout rates of Hispanic students seem to be more than 50% in these articles, and that leads to lowered earnings and family poverty. Please forgive me if I'm dubious about mass immigration and strong economic growth, especially if these trends continue. The federal and state governments shortchange education as it is, how will our communities educate these children?

Like it or not, we will create a permanent underclass, and a huge one, if illegal immigration is not checked. And a large, "disaffected, alienated" underclass is a very dangerous thing. Mr. Zakaria sings the praises of legal immigration, but ignores the costs of illegal immigration.

Posted by: wiccan | April 4, 2006 08:10 PM

Zakaria writes a good piece Emily, but it ignores a certain reality. The invaders, or illegal immigrants, or undocumented (take your pick) are functionally equivalent to the "guest worker" European model, i.e. no path to citizenship and always vulnerable to deportation. We have 11 million of them. Further if you read Aztlan propaganda and watch the flags waving over the protests on TV, one can argue there is some radicalization going on here.

The economic disparity he points out is a fact. Further, as you go further south into the Americas, it gets even worse before it gets better. Unless you are willing to depend entirely on market forces to reach equilibrium, i.e. labor moves north until supply equals demand (at some very much lower wage price), you must somehow control the flow across the border, i.e. put in place a controlled effective barrier to that flow. Like all too many columnists, he avoids confronting the really hard questions.

The first hard question is what do we need to do to control the flow across this border?
1. Build an effective wall, effective enough to reduce the free flow to a manageable trickle.
2. Raise the penalties for employing undocumented workers and enable State enforcement of them as well as federal enforcement.
3. Enable State and Local enforcement of laws against illegal entry into the United States.
4. Reform deportation procedures so that justice in these matters is in fact swift.

The second hard question is what do we do with the 11 million we have?
1. Give those who have put in time and clean living green cards a la Zakaria.
2. Send the law breakers home.
3. Send the more recent entries home.

The third hard question is how large of an immigrant flow do we want to permit in the future?
You can't get around it. This is a political question that needs to be settled in Congress with the appropriate legislation. The fact that it is a difficult political issue for Congress to deal with does not excuse them for dealing with it by ignoring and tolerating illegal immigration. It's a fact that wage levels are at issue here. It's a fact that economic effects are at issue here. We elect the bastards to deal with it; so deal with it.

Posted by: Cayambe | April 4, 2006 08:25 PM

The world has 6.7 billion people.

4 billion of whom want to come to America and 3.5 billion of which I am sure would be upstanding Americans as long as they are not "offended" by our insistance that they wait in line, learn English, and cannot drop anymore "anchor babies".

US Census reports that America has 300 million people. It projects 363 million by 2030 and 420 million by 2050, with that number rising to 480 billion if open borders, amnesties, and liberal "family reunification-chain immigration" continues.

So the question, Emily, is that it is all nice and stuff to have your heart bleed for the Developing world and think how nice it would be for all of them to come to America for good jobs and still be allowed to retain the culture, customs, loyalties, and language of their homelands...

How does that conflict with the goals of Americans? To:

1. Have a unified, not Balkanized country possibly subject to a breakoff Aztlan and another Civil War?
2. To strive for energy independence?
3. To live in an unpolluted, uncongested America that seeks a sustainable environment with living habitat for wildlife?
4. To go to work confident that your job will not be undercut by an illegal willing to live 30 to a room and accept survival wages just as long as they can flee Sudan?
5. To be sure that our vote and 300 year-old successful Western culture is not supplanted by a Latin Patron/Cuadillo culture?
6. That we are not mass importing an unassimilatable Islamic, even terrorist problem as France did?
7. To have a sustained high standard of living and to continue to eradicate the high crime problem that arose in the 60s and 70s?
8. Ensure we maintain the sustainability of our water and arable land resources?
9. To produce students equal to those being produced in China, Japan, India, the Netherlands?
10. To see a world in which people stand and fight for their own freedom - not flee and demand entrance here as refugees?

Any objective thinker should at least conclude that unchecked legal and illegal immigration threatens each of those goals.

America is now the 3rd most populous nation on the Earth. Immigration drives 90% of our population increase. Our 300 million is what China had in 1800, and more than the Indian subcontinent (India+now Pakistan+ now Bangladesh) had in the 1900 British Empire census.

China has 1.2 billion. The subcontinent has 1.4 billion. Both have sacrificed freedom and rights in many areas to help sustain those populations. Both have suffered massive wars, famine, and extensive environmental degradation related to their own people, not external people coming in, multiplying.

Shall we accept the "right" of all people to come here? If so, prepare for America to transform into a non-Western country with over a billion people and a dramatically lowered average standard of living by 2100.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 4, 2006 08:27 PM

"B. The notion that illegal immigrants are prone to crime (beyond their immigration status) is unfounded; they know that as soon as the authorities catch them breaking the law, they'll be deported."

The following article seems to dispute this claim:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html

If local police cannot ask the offender's immigration status and the INS or whatever they're called these days continues to sit around with their thumbs up their butts, I do not see deportation as a crime deterrent.

Posted by: wiccan | April 4, 2006 09:32 PM

and revisted that situation about 3 years ago...

things have changed dramatically, for the worse...

lower wages, temps replacing permanents, no or lower benefits and no job security, for example HOOVER VACUUM CLEANERS...just had their most profitable year ever and closed operations in the United States, laying everyone stateside in manufacturing off...and moved manufacturing overseas...

an American Institution practically...HOOVER VACUM CLEANERS...manufactured who knows where now...


come on wake the eff up!!!!!!!!


saying illegal immigration doesn't hurt peoples' ability to earn a good wage is like saying...


unions are bad for people.

and that outsourcing is good.

that down sizing and letting internationals run American companies is good for National Security...


sure, then you'd like being in the serf class in the 1400's in Paris too...

right, you wouldn't know until it's too late...

you don't even effing know what it's like to come home and quit working at 5:00 PM anymore...

you think you have to keep working to stay competitive...

well you do if you outsource and let Bombay compete as a _peer_

you think they'd let you? I doubt it.


well, let me put it this way, if you have a bottom line mentality, and your attention span is twenty seconds long...

or you're indian, mexican, russian, chinese, indonesian or any one of other people that want the American dollar

then you would say....WE, meaning of course them, the illegals need you to let us in so we can make _hugely_ more than we can in our own country...


let's be reasonable,

how is anyone going to compete with a Pakistani that makes 37 cents an hour?

the only way that is possible is to pay an American 37 cents an hour....is that what you want?

then keep outsourcing and let international companies buy your American countries and let them treat you like Indians and Pakistani's and you can learn to live two or three families to an apartment and cry about the old days too...


let me help you out here


if you live in America, it's not a good idea to lower your wages to compete with 3rd world conditions...


in the 70's working in a factory, would get you a home and a car/truck and benefits and retirement....

and around 55% of people worked in non-white collar work...

still middle class, but some form of trade or factory work....consumers with an ability to buy big ticket items easily...

now those same people are working two jobs with no benefits and bad teeth...

the kids don't see both parents at the same time, because one of them has to be home with the kids while the other works...

I'm not making this up, the insert magazine in the paper PARADE, detailed this a couple of months ago...kids don't really have parents any more, because they're being too busy working...

there's a book out called, "Nickeled and Dimed" about trying to make a living on minimum wage in America...read it before you have to live it...

out sourcing?

yeah, that's what we need...

state and federal services have been being diminished...

how can we afford more people when we dont' take care of our own...


forget about the arguments that are theoretical or skewed towards making you feel sympathetic...

_what_
_is_
_happening_?


IF you're an Indian manager, wanting to move to America, are you going to tell the hiring manager that you're going to open your own business in India to take his company away from him, or are you going to agree to come to America, replace his American manager for 2/3 the salary and plot how to steal his business?

well, if you're like any of the Indian people I know, you're going to take advantage of the situation to the fullest, if he's stupid enough to fall for it....


that's why those countries are called 3rd world...........

they haven't realized that being honest is a part of good business...

Japan has prospered even though it's a small island with scarce resources, because it has protected _KEY_ areas, agriculture and buying or starting businsesses with Japan is fairly prohibitive...

Posted by: actually, I worked blue collar jobs about 30 years ago.. | April 4, 2006 11:46 PM

out sourcing

downsizing

illegals


help people that have money and have nothing to fear, because they don't work for a living they run things....


you can't get their job...


bush and his friends are those people, they are landed, aristocrats, they are born to money


the others from other countries are used to working with corruption as a tool, and are importing _that_ along with their business practices that say taking advantage of

peasants....you're moving into the peasant class

is _normal_


you have a few years _before_ you have _NO_ _CHOICE_

use it to make sure you do.

vote democracy back in.

.


take off the change that says you believe your masters...


terrorists? where are they? in power

12 million illegals? who needs them? owners, do they share the profits...not at all.


this is helping your lives to believe this bull hockey?

.

Posted by: listen... | April 5, 2006 12:04 AM

Illegal aliens by the millions are not good for our society. We are the only developed nation that has mass illegal immigration problem since we chose not to control our borders. Which is astonishiong since anyone ( terrorists?!)can come in. We can occupy foreign countries faster than protect our own nation's borders!

Illegals break our laws:

1: Cross our border illegally.
2: Reside in our country without a valid visa.
3: Work without a permit.
4: Don't pay income taxes.

They cost us money:

1: Emergency healthcare.

2: Schools for their children. At least $8000/year per child , not accounting for language and other special needs most demand in schools.

3: Social services and prisons. In California 30% of inmates are illegals.


THe answer is ENFORCEMENT OF OUR LAWS ! What a radical idea !!

WE need :

1: Mandatory workplace verification of every employee's legal status to work.This may require a "fraud resistant card".

2: Actually enforcing the fines for employers who hire illegals.

3:Improve border control by whatever means to make it hard to breach our border.

4: We may need to open up new legal ways of coming to this country to work if and only if it can be shown that US citizens will not do that particular job.

Posted by: kazmer | April 5, 2006 02:07 AM

The paragraph:

"1. Immigrant communities in the United States do not tend toward radicalism. On this of all issues, why would we move toward the French model -- deportations, penalties and guest worker programs -- when the recent riots prove it to be a deeply flawed system?"

Contains so much confusion that it merits a response, all by itself.

Immigrant communities in the US do not tend toward radicalism *today*, but there have certainly been periods when radicalism born of turmoil overseas has come to America with political refugees, and taken root in their immigrant communities.

And the French model should not be confused with the German model. Access to German citizenship has historically been quite restrictive, and the French do not have "guest worker" programs like those in Germany. The rioters last Novemeber in France were not illegal immigrants or guest workers, they were French citizens, often second or third generation. Their complaint was that, despite their legal status, they are treated as foreigners. The French press and some political figures rather shocked me by talking about "third generation immigrants" - to me, as an American, that's an oxymoron. But in French, I guess it translates as saying that Arab and African immigrants may have been accepted by the law, but not by the public mind.

I think the French experience shows us that it would be foolish to think that "racial"/cultural frictions between America's growing hispanic community and the Anglo establishment will disappear if we solve the illegal immigration problem by handing out guest worker passes and/or US passports. A large portion of those who are upset about Mexican illegals are really far more upset about their language, customs, and color than they are about their legal status.

Posted by: Paralogos | April 5, 2006 05:51 AM

Zakaria's opinion piece was a bit disingenuous. First, Germany was and is preoccupied with assimilating former East Germans (who are as big a contrast in values to the nation's core population as are impoversished Hispanic immigrants to core American ones). Second, in the United States, there is no lack of candidates for employer-sponsored permits for skilled technology jobs although the granting of them does not confer a ticket to citizenship. Third, Germany and Europe have not effectively implemented policies to stanch the flow of less desirable illegal groups from the east and south, seeking social services, perhaps jobs, and too frequently more lucrative havens for criminal activity.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 5, 2006 06:50 AM

To comment on Zakaria's observation that not too many Indians wanted to take up the offer of working in Germany and preferring to come to the US, one doesn't need to look into legislation and politics nearly as much as Zakaria seems to want to.

Germany is a country with long cold damp winters, a completely foreign language, bland food, and very few concessions to other cultural preferences. The US has a burgeoning Indian expat community for support, and has English - something every Indian learns in school even if he doesn't necessarily speak it at home - as the national language. The only reason I could see an Indian choosing to take a job in Germany over one in the US would be if they already had family in the UK or elsewhere in Europe to whom they want to be closer. You'd have a hard time getting *me* to move to Germany - and I'm already an expat, living a few hundred miles away in France!

Posted by: Paralogos | April 5, 2006 07:51 AM

Reported in the WSJ today, the bottom 50% of American families in terms of net worth (wealth) owned 2.5% of the nation's wealth in 2004.

That's the pool we are expanding with present lack of enforcement in immigration, not entrepreneurship, or even self sufficiency.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 5, 2006 08:48 AM

Emily, you write that "Blogger TC the Terrible believes these lawful paths to citizenship already exist -- illegal immigrants just aren't using them. But are there enough such paths to fill the demand?"

"The Demand". That is something not talked about much here. What is causing this "demand"? Why did 12 million people risk lives and pay thousands of dollars to get here? And how did they accomplish the feat considering the border patrols, immigration laws, etc?

The "demand" is the demand caused by companies ACTIVELY seeking out the illegal to hire. The demand is caused by a network of companies and people who actively aid the illegal, from recruiting them in Mexico and south to getting them over the border, into a job and a house using forged documents and other illegal activity. Its not simply a matter of desperate people jumping a fence as Emily and Mr. Zakaria would like you to believe. Its much closer to organized crime with many companies actively supporting it. It ranks up there with illegal drug distribution. And the effects are felt by America's unskilled labor force which has seen their wages depressed and suffer under an unemployment rate no white collar worker would tolerate.

Emily, after hearing about the Mohawk lawsuit on the news yesterday I fully expected it to be the debate topic today yet you have as a topic someone who says there is no problem. Here is a link about the Mohawk lawsuit:

http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Aug/24/194505.html

I think you will see that ilegal immigration is a much bigger problem than anyone thought. By not enforcing our immigration laws, the government is allowing the creation of criminal enterprises that are becomming a way of doing business in the American business world. Its corrupting, its illegal, and Congress should not look at this as a social problem but look at it as a crime problem and fight it with existing laws and new laws. Ignoring the problem will only make it worse.

Posted by: Sully | April 5, 2006 09:31 AM

It seems that looking at the illegal issue from a strictly economic standpoint, having a large inexpensive labor force would be a generally good thing for the country at large, except for the fact that much of the earnings gets sent outside the country rather than being recirculated into the economy. I think ive heard that something around $70 billion leave the country in this manner. In any case its a considerable amount. It seems that addressing this aspect by say, requiring direct deposit for paychecks or something like that, would provide a way to document illegals, as well as serve to encourage only those illegals that wish to become productive members of the US economy, as opposed to just make a quick buck (comparatively speaking of course). Additionally something like this wouldnt be viewed as targeted directly at illegal immigrants and so wont get the kind of backlash the wall idea or the minutemen thing or whatever would.

Posted by: PK | April 5, 2006 09:41 AM

I don't see what more needs to be said that hasn't already been said. Zakaria's article was ill informed, disingenuous, and missed the point.

We cannot have a public discussion about the levels of legal immigrants this country is willing to absorb until we stem the constant flow of illegal invaders. As Cayambe said, we cannot possibly have a rational legislative discourse about how many immigrants we need when the more prescient matter of how many immigrants, both legal and illegal, we are going to get is decided by Mexican citizens invading our country unlawfully.

Posted by: Will | April 5, 2006 10:37 AM

Will wrote:
"We cannot have a public discussion about the levels of legal immigrants this country is willing to absorb until we stem the constant flow of illegal invaders."

No, we must stem the hiring of illegals. If their is no illegal hiring there will be no aliens jumping the border fence.

There are two problems to fight, the alien himself and those who would hire him. Many only focus on the alien yet it is the employer that is the key. No hiring, no illegals coming in for jobs they cannot get. And those already here would loose their jobs and likely return home, on their own, without massive deportations. Politically though, those hiring the illegals lobby Congress, and thus the problem.

Congress is not listening to the majority of Americans who see illegal imigration as a problem. They are listening to corporations that "rely" on the illegal, meaning they need the cheap labor because they do not want to pay a fair legal wage. It is these corporeations that influence members of Congress in their districts. That is why you see politicians from areas with many illegal immigrants being in favor of an amnesty. You would think they would see the damage the most, but from the corporation's view, it is cheap labor that increases profits for the corporation. The American worker is at the bottom of any corporation's consideration and thus each congressman's.

Only the elections will remind these congressmen and women that Americans run this country, not corporations. Corporations do not vote yet they give to political campaigns. Its all part of the corruption of politics and why Congress is out of step with the American people on this topic.

Posted by: Sully | April 5, 2006 11:08 AM

Sully-

I assumed that enforcing current laws and imprisoning/severely fining employers who hire illegal invaders is as effective a method at stemming the flow of those illegals as border enforcement.

Posted by: Will | April 5, 2006 11:25 AM

1. Zakaria's attempt to tie economic growth to the 1986 amnesty is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious argument.

2. The illegals compete most with the native-born that have not completed high school or who have completed high school but who remain functionally illeterate: In other words, illegals compete with the poorest, most vulnerable members of our society, the folks with black faces or red necks who the white-bread bourgeousie look down upon.

3. Testimony by ICE officials last year dispute Zakarias claim regarding compliance with the law: Almost all cocaine and heroin importation and wholesale distribution (as opposed to local distribution and "retail" sales) is conducted by illegal aliens and/or foreign-born persons with legal status. Large scale meth manufacturing in Mexico is beginning to supplant small-scale local domestic meth cooks, esopecially in large urban centers, and it is distributed principally by illegals, often using the same coyotes who smuggle people. Human trafficking in sex-workers and/or sweat-shop labor, is conducted mainly by illegals or other foreign-born. Illegals and foreign-born non-citizens (in and out of status) are also responsible for most of the cases involving arms smuggling. Over a third of state inmates are foreign-born. Basically, as in the Nashville case of a couple who murdered the woman's child by another illegal, and then disappeared for two years, illegals have access to and regularly use sources for false documentation, and can simply melt into that underclass. Its the immigrants and non-immigrant workers who are here in-status who have the most to lose by breaking the law: they are more likely to be deported because they left a paper trail when they first came here.

Posted by: Mike Deal | April 5, 2006 11:41 AM

i think we shouldnt make this so complicated and not deport the illegals,some of my friends have illegal parents in risk of being deported because they are illegal yet they are pissed because their parents have been here for quite some years working and trying to make a life for themselves. its not like they are here just using welfare and unemployment checks while some are its not fair to the rest of them, and the kids were born in america so their legal. My grandpa is also illegal and right now with all this debate it scares me that they are going to deport him or something and my grandma and the rest of us need him!

Posted by: christina | April 5, 2006 12:05 PM

My solution to both population and immigration is simple, fair and efficient. Unfortunately it is also a tad radical and, arguably, inhumane and too imaginative (my pat-on-the-back estimation) to ever be adopted.

What the world needs to do is to abandon the archaic idea of citizenship by birth. Instead the world should be divided into "leagues". To further fairness, these "leagues" should not geographically bound, i.e. continental or hemispheric. Within each league, the lowest ranked areas (let's try to do away with nation-states along with religio-ethic identities while we are at it) will be designated as the entry points for contestants, sorry children. While the most fairest method would dispatch all new-borns to their entry points, the bleeding-heart classes might deem this cruel. And these already impoverished areas might be overwhelmed, though the resulting increase in infant mortality would certainly serve as a brake on population growth. Well, even a perfect solution is bound to have some problems. Therefore, at age five-and-half let all children be ripped from wherever they happened to be born and carried off to their new start. (The increased air traffic will benefit the distressed airline industry. An added plus.) In the "advanced" world, this will let women (or men) who had chosen the "mommy-track" get back to being productive cogs in society.

After a six month familiarization in their new unheated, uncooled, unplumbed, unparented environs, the children will start school. Instruction will be in English, of course. Testing and evaluation will be constant. As the cream rises to the top, promising pupils will be promoted to the next level in the league. By their high school years, the best and brightest will reach their final resting places in the U.S. and be assigned to a family that previously contributed a child to this new world order. Those of lesser merit will be assigned families in Western Europe, Canada, Japan and so on down the line.

Posted by: tcement | April 5, 2006 12:19 PM

Christina,

Its complicated in letting them stay, and work, and in some way legalize them. The bill being discussed considers illegals who have been here longer than others as different, but if illegals could get fake social security numbers and fake documents, they could also get fake histories.

There is no simple solution and even if there were you would still have illegals crossing the border or being brought across with help from within the US and, like today, nothing would be done to stop them, stop them from being hired, or punish them or those who hire them.

No simple solutions here. As to the American children being stuck with the prospect of their parents and grandparents having to leave, well, its not that different than finding out your parents did something illegal in the past and must now answer for it. Don't blame America for enforcing its laws, laws the parents and grandparents knew of, blame the parents and grandparents for putting you in this situation. And claiming their hard work somehow entitles them to stay here is akin to allowing a squatter living in your house to stay because they worked hard to make a life in your home and have been there for a long time.

Posted by: Sully | April 5, 2006 12:24 PM

Christina, that is sad. And I am sorry for the potential your friend and you have for loss. But at the same token, there is a reason why the term is 'illegal.'
The key herre is that they have broken the law and have ignored our legal system.

"i think we shouldnt make this so complicated and not arrest the dug dealers, some of my friends have drug dealing parents in risk of being arrested because they are illegally selling drugs yet they are pissed because their parents have been doing this for years and trying to make a life for themselves. its not like they are here just using welfare and unemployment checks while some are its not fair to the rest of them, and the kids aren't dealing so they're innocent. My grandpa is also a dealer and right now with all this debate it scares me that they are going to arrest him or something and my grandma and the rest of us need him!"

See how ridiculous this sounds? Unfortunately they are breaking the law. Should lawbreakers not be punished?

Posted by: Geb | April 5, 2006 12:24 PM

christina wrote:

"My grandpa is also illegal . . ."

___________

A humane case can be made for a policy of official amnesty for elderly illegal aliens who had been in the society for a number of years and were not dependents on public welfare during their contributing years. If they subsequently became dependent upon their offspring for economic or other critical support, and those were illegally here, the elders may be better off leaving to be near their source of family support. Humaneness yes; anchor grandparents, no.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 5, 2006 12:30 PM

tcement writes:

"My solution . . . is . . . a tad racial."
__________

Your solution was already applied on a mass scale over about a decade.

Remember Mao and the Great Cultural Revolutions of the 60s. It didn't seem to create the utopia the state had in mind as one consequence was the greatest famine in modern history, and perhaps all history.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 5, 2006 12:35 PM

tcement,

Your ideas are not imaginative since they do not consider the results of the changes you describe or any unintended consequences. You give no cost/benefit analysis to show how it is better than today's social systems and you show no examples from history. However there was one historical example in history close to what you describe and I'll leave it as an excercise for you to you to figure out which it was. HINT: A long time ago ...

If you have no idea, then I recommend you study history a little more since most of what societies do wrong has already been proven in the past, we (e.g., you) do not learn from history and are thus condemned to repeat it.

Posted by: Sully | April 5, 2006 12:45 PM

A definitely advantageous if seldom mentioned aspect of illegal immigration is that it necesitates creation of millions of new jobs in Homeland Security. Indeed, due to the huge amount of taxpayer money thrown at DHS, the number of government enforcers and bureaucrats has at least quadrupled and rising. Unfortunately, the stressful task of protecting the nation against illegals and terrorists is beginning to take its toll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401973.html.

Posted by: Alberto Gonzales | April 5, 2006 01:07 PM

Much has been said about the fact that hispanics take jobs that Americans won't do...what does that mean for the future of our unskilled workforce? What does it say about their designs on developing themselves for better jobs? Is it a resignation on their part that illegals will assume control on the poor man's strata?

Posted by: ralph | April 5, 2006 01:27 PM

Should the above link not work, I supply the excerpts:

"DHS Spokesman Is Accused of Soliciting Teen Online

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Page A24

The deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security was arrested last night on charges that he used the Internet to seduce an undercover Florida sheriff's detective who he thought was a 14-year-old girl, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said,"....

blah blah blah

"Another Homeland Security official -- Frank Figueroa, special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Tampa -- faces trial this week on charges of exposing himself to a teenage girl last year at a mall. Figueroa, who has been suspended, pleaded not guilty."

Posted by: Alberto | April 5, 2006 01:28 PM

Alberto -

WTF does your post have to do with the thread topic?

Please follow the rules and post on topic.

That is the problem with letting CHE stay and not banning him. He encourages others.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 5, 2006 01:43 PM

Here are some thoughts for Emily and Fareed.

A. We have somewhere around 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. No democracy would deport all these people, and we certainly won't.

Deportation is not needed. America needs to offer work-permits to those immigrants that can testify against illegal employers.

With enforcent of employer sanctions, business will re-evaluate the option of paying fair market labor rates, or near-shoring to Latin America. Fairer competition will ensue and many migrants will self-deport for the additional jobs back home.

B. The notion that illegal immigrants are prone to crime (beyond their immigration status) is unfounded; they know that as soon as the authorities catch them breaking the law, they'll be deported.

Agreed, the employer's are the criminals. The statistics are basically paid propaganda for both sides.

C. The mass amnesty granted under President Reagan worked -- just look at all the economic growth since then, and the way these immigrants have successfully become part of the fabric of American society.

The "growth" has been a detriment to society at large, destroying domestic markets in Latin America and the labor market here.

In 1965 the minimum wage was $1.25 per hour, with full employment, a single earner would peg a family of three at 103.4% of poverty. In 2005, at $5.15 minimum wage, the same family worker falls to 68.9% of the poverty level.

It's laughable to hear landscapers and farmers boasting that they pay $7.00 per hour, "well over minimum wage." Seven Dollars and forty seven cents ($7.47) per hour would be required just to match the minimum 1965 rate of $1.25

In 1965, skilled construction workers earned $40.00 per day, as a rule of thumb, very few construction worker earn the equivalent $29.88 per hour today -- especially in high migration areas.

Sen. Edward Kennedy,
"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

Mr. Kennedy was right about one thing back in 1965 -- other than multiplying, the standards of admission haven't changed much. Bless his heart, he's still trying.

The 1986 IRCA should be amended...
1. Raise employer sanctions fines to represent a ratio with present day legal immigration.

2. Tamper-proof Identification and manditory enrollment checks.

3. Witness protection program for immigrants helping to enforce the 1986 IRCA provisions.

Ratio Legal-Immigration:Employer-Sanctions

First offense: (per employee)
1986 250,000:$250.00
2006 1,000,000:$1000.00

Third offense:
1986 250,000:$10,000.00
2006 1,000,000:$40,000.00

Posted by: | April 5, 2006 01:48 PM

Alberto writes:

Should the above link not work, I supply the excerpts:

"DHS Spokesman Is Accused of Soliciting Teen Online

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Page A24

The deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security was arrested last night on charges that he used the Internet to seduce an undercover Florida sheriff's detective who he thought was a 14-year-old girl, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said,"....

blah blah blah

"Another Homeland Security official -- Frank Figueroa, special agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Tampa -- faces trial this week on charges of exposing himself to a teenage girl last year at a mall. Figueroa, who has been suspended, pleaded not guilty."


**************

And, Alberto, your point is?

We are aware of how screwed up the Bush Administration is, but we're debating immigration here. You offer no comment as to the issue at hand.

Do share it, I'd be interested to know what you have to say.

****************

To Christina,

I second what Sully writes, "No simple solutions here. As to the American children being stuck with the prospect of their parents and grandparents having to leave, well, its not that different than finding out your parents did something illegal in the past and must now answer for it. Don't blame America for enforcing its laws, laws the parents and grandparents knew of, blame the parents and grandparents for putting you in this situation. And claiming their hard work somehow entitles them to stay here is akin to allowing a squatter living in your house to stay because they worked hard to make a life in your home and have been there for a long time."

Have a long talk with your family, and ask them this: "What the hell is an old man doing selling drugs?" That's sick and twisted!!!

Posted by: Sicka Hearinit | April 5, 2006 01:49 PM

Uh, Sicka.... Christina didn't say the old man was selling drugs... that was me substituting being an illegal imigrant for dealing drugs... Sorry for the confusion!

Posted by: Geb | April 5, 2006 02:07 PM

Wow... This board has been dominated by the Minutemen. What's the matter guys, too many brown faced people hanging around for you? When are you going to quit hidding behind this issue and reveal yourselves as the new reincarnation of the KKK?

Don't for a second believe that these guys care about the plight of the lower classes that compete with "illegals". They are worried about diluting American (read white) culture. Notice how they've started call immigrants "invaders" because that makes them less human. It is only a matter of time before they start call them cockroaches. What next fellas? What is the "final solution"?

Hey Mike Deal- what is the latin term for "straw man"? Zakaria's argument wasn't that economic growth was a result of the amnesty program but rather poking a hole in the argument that amnesty.

Christina, don't follow Geb's slippery slope. Mad libs, a whole generation advanced from the "because I said so" rhetorical tactic, is fun. Why don't you substitute "speeding" which is also illegal. Ooooh for some naughty fun substitute "sodomy" or any other of the various private acts that go on behind closed doors that are also illegal. Thanks Geb, this is even more fun than I thought.

At the end of the day you minute boys are all the same- sophomoric and thinly disguised white supremists.

Posted by: SamIam | April 5, 2006 02:10 PM

Samlam plays the race card. How original. I wonder if he has something to debate, like facts.

Posted by: Sully | April 5, 2006 02:17 PM

Samlam,
We've heard the racist accusations before. If you can't back them up with proof, all that does is give us something to laugh at you for.

The only racist card I hear being thrown around is yours. Do you know our races? No. So stop acting like you do.

As someone from an immigrant family, I am annoyed by illegal immigrants. They have no respect for our laws. Should we allow someone into the country who will not support our laws? No.

As far as Geb's analogy is concerned, yes, it can be attributed to other things. Linking it to immigration in an attempt to justify your part however, was stupid. Speeding is a crime. And yes, speeding does get you pursued by the police. Anyone who drives knows this, as they must be cautious for fear of getting pulled over. If you speed too fast, it can even land you in jail. So are you advocating that lawbreaker's shouldn't be persecuted? That seems rather ignorant. In regards to other acts, if you break the law, you always have the chance that you will face the consequences. In some cases, things slide based on changes in popular opinion or discretion of the police. But the option is always there until public opinion leads to a change in legislation. And I don't know if you've noticed, Samlam, but public AMERICAN opinion seems to be against these lawbreakers.

Posted by: Freedom | April 5, 2006 02:24 PM

Producerism is not racism...

We should be improving conditions on both sides of the border.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism

Posted by: eSparky | April 5, 2006 02:25 PM

Samlam-

"When are you going to quit hidding behind this issue and reveal yourselves as the new reincarnation of the KKK?"

If you continue to hinder reasonable public dialogue about immigration by reducing the opposition to mere racists then you might get exactly what you wish for. The longer this issue is unresolved the more disenfranchised the public will become with the political discourse that is utterly disconnected from public sentiment. If the moderating voice in the debate mirrored on this forum is silenced, then the public really will turn to the white sheets for political access. Let's hope that never happens.

"Notice how they've started call immigrants "invaders" because that makes them less human."

There is nothing inhuman about calling someone an invader. The term is factually more accurate than undocumented worker.

"It is only a matter of time before they start call them cockroaches. What next fellas? What is the "final solution"?"

And who is employing slippery slopes? Calling a person an invader is tantamount to encouraging Hispanic Holocaust?

"Hey Mike Deal- what is the latin term for "straw man"? Zakaria's argument wasn't that economic growth was a result of the amnesty program but rather poking a hole in the argument that amnesty."

No, Zakaria's argument from Messner's article is that amnesty works because... just look at how much growth we've experienced! It is an unimpressive argument.

Posted by: Will | April 5, 2006 02:43 PM

eSparkey,
There is a mistake in your bringing the Producerism link up. The article describes the issue of immigration. Immigration is a term refering to an alien immigrating into a country. That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing illegal immigration.

You are not the first to mix legal and illegal immigration in terms of just "immigration". We hear it today when discussing illegal immigration:
"We are a nation of immigrants"
etc...
This blog has had many discussions of ILLEGAL immigration and so far I don't think anyone has discussed any bad effects of legal immigration.

People in this blog and in this debate, here and elsewhere, need to stop mixing the two and stop comparing my legal immigrant grandmother who came in legally through Ellis Island, with someone who paid a cayote $1500 to be smuggled in this country, bought false ID, gave that false ID to an employer, and then complains they have a right to stay in this country because they helped the economy, oh yea, and somehow paid taxes.

Get it straight, illegal immigration does not equal legal immigration. It is against the law because it harms the country, its citizens and legal immigrants.

Posted by: Sully | April 5, 2006 02:46 PM

Oooops, thanks Geb for clarifying that...

I must've been reading too fast...

In any case, I still think Christina needs to talk to her family.

*********

Samlam writes:

At the end of the day you minute boys are all the same- sophomoric and thinly disguised white supremists.

Samlam, I'm happy to say that I am female AND not white. Your assumptions have just made you look like an ass. Congrats.

Like Freedom, who writes: As someone from an immigrant family, I am annoyed by illegal immigrants. They have no respect for our laws. Should we allow someone into the country who will not support our laws? No.

I, too, am annoyed by illegal immigrants. It's as though they are proud to have broken the laws and they are proud to be moochers. I wouldn't compare it to cockroaches, but to an irritating guest who has overstayed his/her welcome.

Call me what you will, Samlam...Call me what you will.

Posted by: Sicka Hearinit | April 5, 2006 02:51 PM

Sully,

I don't understand your resistance to the term Producerism. Big business is squeezing the American worker with immigration concessions on the top and bottom of the scale.

The debate:

C. The mass amnesty granted under President Reagan worked -- just look at all the economic growth since then, and the way these immigrants have successfully become part of the fabric of American society.

Notice the term, "economic," and, "amnesty," presumed to mean legalized in Emily's question?

Economic immigration is wrong in all forms, depletes productivity of the donor country while flooding their markets with below market product.

While working and traveling in Mexico 100% of the nationals (with jobs) that I spoke with had no desire to even visit the U.S.

Illegal Immigration is mostly economic immigraiton.

The 1986 IRCA dealt with all forms of immigration legal, illegal and enforcement. The Senate is attempting to backdoor more non-immigrant visas (guestworkers) into the Kennedy Bill.

So you're saying we can debate one portion of the bill but not the rest?

There are good reasons to allow immigration -- economic subsidies for business is not one of them.

Posted by: eSparky | April 5, 2006 03:28 PM

eSparkey wrote:
"So you're saying we can debate one portion of the bill but not the rest?"

Well, I didn't think we were debating the bill. I thought we were debating illegal immigration. If we begin mixing legal and illegal imigration and how both affect American workers and the economy in general, I think we will be mixing arguments. The two are seperate issues in my mind. The fact that both end up in the bill does not mean they are connected. I have no issue with legal immigrants. It has been a method this country has used to expand its economy for over 100 years now. When controlled, it works.

Posted by: Sully | April 5, 2006 03:44 PM

Sorry lady, I was talking to a couple of people on this dicussion who outed themselves by their repetitive use of minutemen talking points. As for you- hey, white guys don't have a monopoly on ignorance.

We are talking about millions of people who come here to work. They WORK... save money and WORK more. They are responsible for the speed and voracity of the housing market. They pay more more in state sales taxes than they take out in social services.

As for this incredibly dimwitted notion that illegals are more likely to commit crimes- can we think of another marginalized and stereotyped population of people who are categorized as lazy and prone to crime? hmmm... think real hard. Give you a hint Bennett suggest that we abort them to eliminate our crime problem.

Moreover I challenge you to think about how many time you break the law in the course of the week. Speeding, J-walking, listening to pirated music, ect. Hell, in Texas sex toys are illegal. So before you get on your moral high horse remember that you are in a glass house yourself.

Will sorry... for some reason the end of my sentence was lost Zacharias specifically made his point on the Daily Show as a way of denbunking the argument that amnesty would hurt our economy. He never said that the boom was caused by the amnesty.

Posted by: SamIam | April 5, 2006 03:48 PM

I'm with those who suggest strong penalties against employers who hire workers not legally allowed to work in the US. Enforce that, and illegal immigration will slow a great deal.

I'm STRONGLY against some delusional approach that involves building walls/fences, or other sorts of barriers ... walls don't work. If going over under or through a landwall is complicated, a boat can defeat it by going around, as can airplanes. there is no secure wall ... from the Great Wall to the Maginot Line to the Berlin Wall to the silly thing Israel is building.

Illegal immigration is like the illegal drug trade - if people here want it (cheap labor by US employers, illegal chemicals by US users) it'll come.

Mexico and Canada are friends and allies, we're at peace with both. Neither Mexicans nor Canadiens are known to export terrorists to the US. Building walls between us and either nation is bad style, impractical and ineffective.

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | April 5, 2006 04:10 PM

Samlam,
Please discuss these 'minuteman' talking points and adress how they are racist? The only thing you've started to address is breaking the law, and poorly at that. Generally, racist arguments can be refuted. You haven't done this. To not do so means you are relying on a strawman arguement. Just because one does not agree with you does not mean they are automatically a racist.

In terms of breaking the law, what are you trying to prove? Yes, people break laws. And when people do so, they can be and are punished. For speeding, people get tickets and in rare cases, arrested. Same thing for J-walking. Pirated music can lead to huge lawsuits and large fines. Illegal immigration can lead to being arrested and deported. You seem to be implying we don't want certain laws enforced. Where has someone said this?

And please provide evidence that illegal immigrants pay in more than they take out? There are mixed findings regarding this and I'm interested in what "obviously true" research you are refering to. Could you also explain findings that illegal immigrants hurt legal residents/citizens in terms of lowering wages? How about the amount of money that is sent out of the country and does not contribute to the economy? Hurting citizens by using fake social security numbers? Potentially unsafe driving without licenses as they are afraid to get one might lead them to being deported? The list goes on, and you say nothing.

Sorry if I raise your so called 'minuteman talking points' but until you refute them or explain how they are linked to racism, I will keep raising them.

Posted by: Freedom | April 5, 2006 04:12 PM

I was researching the affect of the 1986 Amnesty when I found this study:

http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/wp0410.pdf

I would refer Samlam to this study and one I posted earlier:

http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/deseg/Denver_Reseg.pdf

Aftet you read these, Samlam, please give me your thoughts on how a vast underclass of the undereducated and unskilled will benefit America. All of America, not just the ruling elite who will exploit them.

Posted by: wiccan | April 5, 2006 04:17 PM

Sully, Sully, Sully... how little you know! Those were times when we had open immigration policies so there was no such thing as illegal immigration from Europe. Did your grandmother have to apply for a visa before she came? No. We accepted one and all and I think you should consider the words written on the great statue that over looks over Ellis Island and think about what your grandmother and the others who fled abject poverty in Europe would have done in the face of our current laws. If you think she would have stayed in the old country you're nuts. I'll point you a couple of illegals from Ireland in the early 90's who came over looking for work. Of course, you might not care too much about them seeing as they look just like you and me.

Posted by: SamIam | April 5, 2006 04:29 PM


Chris & Sicko,

My point was that existence of some 11 million illegal immigrants in this country is directly or indirectly responsible for existence of several million Federal jobs taken exclusively by U.S. citizens. The problem is that while the merit of the immigrant presence is at least debatable, the huge and rapidly growing army of DHS enforcers and bureaucrats is useless at best. A poor use of taxpayer money, in other words. A waste. Today's article "DHS Spokesman Is Accused of Soliciting Teen Online" only serves to exemplify that.

Posted by: Albero Gonzales | April 5, 2006 04:40 PM

Samlam-

"They pay more more in state sales taxes than they take out in social services."

Care to source that wild assertion?

"As for this incredibly dimwitted notion that illegals are more likely to commit crimes- can we think of another marginalized and stereotyped population of people who are categorized as lazy and prone to crime?"

What a blatant non-denial denial. Are you unwilling to go on record saying that illegals commit fewer crimes than non illegals?

The only known distinguishing characteristic between "illegal immigrants" and "legal immigrants" is the former's proclivity for breaking American law.

"Moreover I challenge you to think about how many time you break the law in the course of the week. Speeding, J-walking, listening to pirated music, ect. Hell, in Texas sex toys are illegal."

And I wouldn't argue to a judge that i shouldn't have to pay a speeding ticket because I was on my way to work. What's your point?

"for some reason the end of my sentence was lost Zacharias specifically made his point on the Daily Show as a way of denbunking the argument that amnesty would hurt our economy. He never said that the boom was caused by the amnesty."

And the straw man is? Zakarias claim is wrong: amnesty did depress wages.

Posted by: Will | April 5, 2006 04:42 PM

Samlam, fyi, the words you are refering to were written by Emma Lazarus, a contest winner, and were only inscribed in 1903. Not the greatest authority on American views and regulations for the time; simply the catchiest entry in a contest by a New York paper.

Posted by: Freedom | April 5, 2006 04:44 PM

Samlam writes:

Moreover I challenge you to think about how many time you break the law in the course of the week. Speeding, J-walking, listening to pirated music, ect. Hell, in Texas sex toys are illegal. So before you get on your moral high horse remember that you are in a glass house yourself.

Samlam, I'm sorry but your arguments are not very strong. Especially, with the above, how does this relate to immigration laws? And by the way, I'm going to ride very high on my "moral high horse" because as a decent U.S. citizen, I do not break the law. I respect the laws of this country.

Posted by: Sicka Hearinit | April 5, 2006 04:47 PM

It's SICK-A, Alberto...

Anyway, you write: The problem is that while the merit of the immigrant presence is at least debatable, the huge and rapidly growing army of DHS enforcers and bureaucrats is useless at best. A poor use of taxpayer money, in other words. A waste. Today's article "DHS Spokesman Is Accused of Soliciting Teen Online" only serves to exemplify that.

*************

That DHS Spokesman's pedophilia has nothing to do with immigrants or immigrant law.

Posted by: Sicka Hearinit | April 5, 2006 04:58 PM

Samlam wrote:
"I'll point you a couple of illegals from Ireland in the early 90's who came over looking for work. Of course, you might not care too much about them seeing as they look just like you and me."

If they are illegal they should be treated as such. You seem to think this is only an issue of Mexicans or browned skinned people. You make a wild assumption. My grandmother entered legally at the time. Your friends from Ireland did not. See the difference? I do. I could care less what they look like. Analyses have shown that illegal immigrants depress the wages of unskilled jobs by 8%. Unskilled labor unemployment in the US is not at the national average of 5%, its over 10%. Those are unemployed Americans who could be working the jobs the illegals are working at depressed wages. Yet you do not see cause/effect, you only see racism where you want to see it. Study the issue and stop blathering about the motives of people you do not know with no data of your own and nothing to back up your silly assumptions. Here's a link to get you started learning about this issue:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1104.html
After knawing on that why not read this article describing how the government and corporations of Austin Texas have conspired to accomodate illegal immigrants not for the good of Austinians but for the good of Austin's companies. Next, learn how Mohawk Carpet is being taken to court under RICO statutes (organized crime laws) for participating in a racket to not only hire illegals so as to depress wages of their legal and American workers, but to go into Mexico looking for the labor, hiring cayotes to sneak them across the border and provide false documents. Here the link for that:
http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Aug/24/194505.html

Get educated Samlam. Ignorance really looks stupid.

Posted by: Sully | April 5, 2006 05:03 PM

Samlam-

Check this out: http://www.nps.gov/stli/serv02.htm

Two items got my attention:

"Over the next 62 years, more than 12 million immigrants follow through this port of entry and although they received no such coin, pomp or circumstance, most were on their way to becoming Americans."

Hmmm, 12 million over 62 years compared to 12 million over 20 years.

"Despite the island's reputation as an "Island of Tears", the vast majority of immigrants were treated courteously and respectfully, and were free to begin their new lives in America after only a few short hours on Ellis Island. Only two percent of the arriving immigrants were excluded from entry. The two main reasons why an immigrant would be excluded were if a doctor diagnosed that the immigrant had a contagious disease that would endanger the public health or if a legal inspector thought the immigrant was likely to become a public charge or an illegal contract laborer."

Hmmm, a public charge or illegal contract laborer. Guess the Minutemen got to them too.

Posted by: wiccan | April 5, 2006 05:04 PM

Here's that link I left out of my 5:03:20 post about Austin Texas:
http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/i9news/illegalfuelaustin12599.html

Posted by: Sully | April 5, 2006 05:07 PM

Sully-

As a native of Austin, Texas I take great offense to you referring to us as "Austinians". The correct term is "Austinites".

Posted by: Will | April 5, 2006 05:10 PM

Civil disobedience keeps being put forward as justified to oppose illegal immigration, almost always with a score of specious rationalizations attached. Let's get below the surface on these assertions.

Committing civil disobedience in one's own society, and then openly facing the consequences is one thing; and usually a widely respected form of dissent. But when one is not in their own society, plus when they are acting deceptively, brazenly breaking laws loses all moral and political standing; it becomes simple self-serving, self-absorbed, sociopathic crime.

If some poor depressed soul needs to act-out civil disobedience, then they have America's full support; that is, if they want to do it in their home countries of Cuba, Venezuela, China, Zimbabwe, et. al.

It takes no guts to be an alien "human" invader coming into the U.S. working overtime to deconstruct the basic institutions of America. People with no guts got no standing in this debate.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 5, 2006 05:16 PM

Sicka, you are THICKA as a BRICKA.

That was only AN EXAMPLE, get it?
Learn to ubderstand simple concepts. Look up Webster's at your local library if you must.

Posted by: Alberto | April 5, 2006 05:28 PM

What is evident in the illegal immigration/ amnesty issue is that the members of Intellectual Class favor amnesty and are quick to identify those oppose to their views as racist xenophobes.

Secured in its tenure positions on elitist campuses, political incumbencies or holding journalist/columnist positions where the disastrous effects of job outsourcing, lower income opportunities and a lower standard of living have not been experienced, they pontiff on the "benefits" that "we," that are experiencing the realities, will gain from illegals flooding our borders.

Since, none of these parasitic "word" creators actually produce any "real wealth", as the Middle Class worker does, why we should rely on their purported "expertise?" After all, they are the ones that brought us the great Left/Right polarization conflict and all the pains of Globalization.

Middle Class Nationalism is not a sin as some Internationalist Intellectuals would have us believe!

Posted by: camus | April 5, 2006 06:03 PM

Will,
Be glad I didn't use the term Australian.

Austinite sounds like a rare earth, a large rock that falls out of the sky that makes you say "aah" as in, "ahh, ain't that one of them there aahstinites?", or a small hard shelled animal that crawls across roads getting hit by cars. Well, at least you're not from Baltimore. I call them Baltimorons.

All in fun Will. I'm from Maryland, the DC area. Take your best shot. My favorite is Warrrshintonian (due to the local accent).

Posted by: Sully | April 5, 2006 06:28 PM

OK, just did some math. Over the last 20 years there has been an average of 600000 illegal immigrants, which is a 32% a year increase over the legal immigration at Ellis Island in the 62 years it was open.

And each of the immigrants at Ellis Island was admitted by a representative of the United States govt. Who admitted these 12 million illegal immigrants during the last 20 years?

Posted by: draco | April 5, 2006 06:30 PM

STOP! YOU ARE HURTING JEB!


"Accusing politicians of "pounding their chests" on immigration for short-term political gain, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday that the tone of the debate had been "hurtful" to him and his Mexican-born wife, Columba.

Bush, the younger brother of President Bush, reserved some of his sharpest criticism for conservatives in his own Republican Party, calling it "just plain wrong" to charge illegal immigrants with a felony, as a provision passed by the Republican-led House would do. He also opposed "penalizing the children of illegal immigrants" by denying them U.S. citizenship, an idea backed by some conservatives but not included in the legislation."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jeb5apr05,0,4076175.story?coll=la-home-nation

Posted by: | April 5, 2006 08:25 PM

For Sully,

Pardon, I beg of you, it must be the term, "illegal," throughout the article -- I mistakenly assumed we were speaking about the law. I'll try not tho jump ahead like that again.

Sully wrote:

"It has been a method this country has used to expand its economy for over 100 years now."

... and that's exactly why we have illegal immigration today.

Sully wrote:

"When controlled, it works"

If you call having the big kid steal the little kid's lunch money working.

The statistics and emotion are a smokescreen obscuring the causes. If your single issue argument is simply, "it's illegal," what's to debate?

Why don't we hear much about the illegal employer building wealth at the expense of our infrastucture and other's misfortune?

The illegal employers are openly admitting their conduct to Congress. What's wrong with this picture?

BTW: I'm a degreed ex-professional that sets 5 tons of scaffold most weekdays -- the unwelcome American on most jobs.

So much for the jobs Americans don't want.

Posted by: | April 5, 2006 08:51 PM

Samlam,
You accuse pro enforcement posts as racist. I disagree.
Minorities commonly accuse the other side of racism when they can't win a debate on facts. That is what you are doing.
A racist post would have to advocate enforcing the law agains minority illegals only and not against white illegals. The only posts I have seen are the ones that advocate enforcing the law of the land regardless of race .

Succesful multiethnic states uphold the rule of law fairly regardless of race.

Illegal immigration is a law enforcement problem. At this point our nation CHOSES not to enforce the law. Until citizens demand it legislators will not pass laws that don't have big enough loopholes for another 10 million to pass through.

An important part of any legislation need to be police training nationwide on the proper way to identify and handle illegals.

Posted by: Kazmer | April 5, 2006 08:53 PM

I would like to clarify a few things about the immigration issue and want to know where I am wrong.

Every nation is a nation of immigrants, not just America. Even the Native Americans (Indians) were immigrants as they migrated from Asia during the Ice Age. It is not as if people just suddenly appear in a particular area of the world and claim themselves to be a sovereign country. I don't understand why you and the other Senators on the floor keep saying this and citing how your parents came to America (Ellis Island) from Europe in the early 1900s. There is nothing unique about it.

There is a difference between a legal and an illegal immigrant. You often mesh these two groups together to make your argument seem more compelling. The immigrants that came in the early 1900s were largely legal; the immigrants that are coming now are largely ILLEGAL. I am pro-legal immigration, but anti-illegal immigration.

Our economy will not collapse if the current crop of illegals were forced out. How did the U.S. survive 15 years ago when there weren't 12 million illegals in the country? We were able to find legal workers to do manual farm labor back then so why can't we now? Obviously, the current crop of illegals couldn't be made to all quit at one time; they would need to be gradually replaced with American citizens and future flows of LEGAL immigrants.

Illegals add more cost than benefit to our economy. I think if you look at the legitimate independent studies, you will find that illegals take more away from the economy than they pay in taxes and the polls suggest that most Americans think the same thing. As you know, we have a progressive tax system, meaning the poor (like the illegals) pay the least in taxes and you will find they there are plenty of examples of hospitals by the border that had to close their doors due to financial problems. Many illegals don't have health insurance so they go to the emergency room to get treatment and never pay. Perhaps immigrants as a whole add more to the economy than they take out, but here again, you have to distinguish between the legal and the ILLEGAL immigrant. Additionally, as you well know, much of the money these Illegals make they send back to their families in Latin America; they don't spend it here in our economy.

We are a still a nation of compassion by making them now leave. We were plenty compassionate enough when we let them illegally stay and work in our country for the past 20 years. Now it is time to claim the rule of law. The kids that will potentially be broken away from their parents have nobody to blame but the parents themselves who chose to sneak across the Arizona desert in the middle of the night. They parents knew that they could eventually be deported so they can take their anger out on themselves, not the American government.

The illegals do jobs Americans won't do FOR THE LOW WAGES. There are plenty of under-educated and low-skilled natural born American citizens who would gladly pick apples or wash dishes, but they won't do it for $4-5/hour, nor should they have to. Additionally, it is much easier for an employer to just pick up a bunch of illegals standing on a street corner than to go to an employment agency or post an advertisement and wait for a response, which is how most of these low-skilled Americans get jobs (not standing on a street corner). Third, how does the government know the illegals are doing jobs Americans won't do if the jobs are already taken up by the illegals. So, those are the 3 reasons illegals are getting American jobs: pay, accessibility, and illegals already having the jobs.

If this bill is passed the current crop of illegals WILL be jumping in front of the line. The current illegals may have to pay a fine, learn to speak English, sign up for a 6 year worker program, etc., and may get deported if they don't pass all the tests, but the current crop of foreigners who are waiting to legally get processed into this country must wait in THEIR COUNTRY of origin, while the illegals get to stay OUR COUNTRY during the process. Those law-abiding foreigners who are waiting don't get that luxury.

There is a way to get the illegals to leave without forcefully rounding them up. Don't allow them work at our jobs, don't allow them to go to our schools, don't allow them to be treated at our hospitals, don't allow them to use our social services, etc. and they won't have a reason to stay here. Most will return to their home country and truly get in the back of the line to become an immigrant the right way- legally. And if the employers continue to hire them, if the school administrators continue to admit them, etc. then put those people in jail, don't just fine them. Furthermore, the proposal you support would still have deport the millions of illegalss who couldn't jump through all of the hoops of the "guest-worker" program so why are you so anti- deportation

All of the noise created by the pro illegal immigration crowd protests in L.A. is misguided. First off, many of those people aren't citizens meaning their political opinion means nothing. Second, many of those people are kids searching for an identity or looking for an excuse to cut class. Third, waving the Mexican and Columbian flags in order to gain citizenship is not what I call assimilation. Fourth and foremost why don't they use all of that emotion to go back home and fix their own countries so they don't have to come to ours? Many of their home countries have governments marked by corruption and abuse and mismanaged economies. If they can assemble 500,000 strong in a single U.S. city they should be able to do the same on the steps of the capital in Mexico City and have their own revolution. They were willing to risk their lives coming here (as the supporters of this bill so often point out) why not use all of that desire to fix their country of origin because ultimately that is the source of this whole problem.

P.S. I would appreciate a response that would tell me were I am wrong, point by point, as opposed to just giving me your general view on immigration. Furthermore, I sent a previous letter that contained virtually the same information provided above and called your office in Cedar Rapids. As I said the first time, I will not quit until I get some specific counter arguments. How can you not back up your position as my paid representative in government?

Posted by: Joe | April 5, 2006 09:00 PM

I sent the prior post to my congressman and he has yet to send a response back to me, presumably because he can't tell me where I am wrong. Can you?

Posted by: Joe | April 5, 2006 09:03 PM

(Dry humor: Sorry jumping ahead a little bit.)

Stock market analogy of mass amnesty

In the stock market, we have well enforced laws that prevent corporations from issuing additional stock without compensating the current shareholders -- why is immigration law treated differently?

Here is a proposal to extend Corporate Business Law so that America can have subsidized investment along with subsidized foreign labor.

Abstract:

Due to the fact that investors (Americans) are more fortunate than many others, we propose a change to Corporate Law along with the proposed changes to Immigration Law.

The Amendment:

It is highly unfair for corporations to be required to compensate existing shareholders when more investment is needed. Therefore, we must allow Corporate business to issue additional common-stock certificates, without compensating the current shareholder, at the comensurate discounted price, whereby, encouraging investment opportunities for the less fortunate.

Waiving the requirement to compensate the current shareholder is good for the corporate economy and is only a temporary setback for the current shareholder. The theory of, "Global Gooble-Dee-Gook," assures us that the current shareholder's present day value will fully recover within a Century.

End Amendment:


Without an expectation of returns, stocks and work are valueless. The bottom line of the Amendment is that the current shareholder takes it in the shorts if the re-valuation becomes a regular occurrence.

Can we conclude that our government is telling us that we are overpriced Americans (shareholders), that cannot survive without new, discount investors (migrant workers)? Or, do we conclude that the discounted investors and current shareholders should settle for discounted prosperity?

Posted by: eSparky | April 5, 2006 11:04 PM

Sully: "Austinite sounds like a rare earth."

I can't resist. Austinitic steel. Refers to a crystal phase transformation in steel alloys, particularly stainless ones, right above the martensitic phase. In industry we use shorthand and numbers for specific steels like AS 440 being Austinitic Stainless Steel type 440 under ASME...but basic type is referred to as Martensite, Austinite, etc.

Posted by: Chris Ford | April 5, 2006 11:09 PM

Ah Chris.....of course; it had to be you. :o)
Austinitic indeed.......ROFLOL

Posted by: Cayambe | April 6, 2006 12:22 AM

20 years to bring in 12 million illegal aliens...


for one thing, that number has to be light...


I see Mexicans everywhere, and I know for a fact that I got my hair cut by a ukrainian that said she was italian....

with an accent like boris badenough...that's from rockie and bullwinkle for those of you kids...


illegal is the thing,


and it is sickening to watch the

senators and

house members

walking and talking about

those _illegals_


when those aholes would sell my sister if they could find someone to buy her...


got a piece of America that you want to sell or that anyone wants to buy...

contact your senator or representive and we'll pass a law to do that....


IF YOU HAVE A BRAIN


_AT ALL_


the focus has to be to make

_HIRING AN ILLEGAL A FELONY THE FIRST TIME_


IF it can be shown that you didn't check, or that you knew that you were hiring illegals...


these people are stealing from you, they are taking your job away,

they are inviting these people in...


once you get a certain number in they start recruiting...and hire _all illegal_ crews...


remember it used to be dangerous to go to Mexico during the 80's and 90's because there was a threat of kidnapping?


like everyone in Mehico is a nice person that just wants to live the American dream...


what American dream?

retire with a pension?

have healthcare?

be able to predict the future, because you've to a degree in computer science that your average business, psychology graduate couldn't _ever_ get?

I don't think so, not if they can get a juan or rajid to do it for 1.25 an hour...


but hey you paint houses, or do construction so they can't give your job away right?

it appears that they are talking about doing that...

senators and representitives are going to make the

12 million illegals, legal and not do jack about

the people that hire illegals...


even though if you focused on those people,


it would freeze the influx immediately...


arrest 500 people for illegally hiring illegals, give them a felony conviction...


keep them from bidding on government contracts, or other sensitive situations...


it might solve itself, with a _lot_ less money spent on processing....


I would try that first...


but hey, I actually think not pander for a living...

see yah,


good night and hope that someone pays for raping your country as you stand by and watch...

.

Posted by: I really doubt that it took | April 6, 2006 12:44 AM

Where to start hmmm...

Maybe with this: wiccan, Even if we igonore the assumption that here were no illegal immigrants it is hard to ignore the difference in US populations. During the 62 years the impact of immigrants on the general population was HUGE comparitive to today. Also I would point out that we are little better of counting illegal aliens today.

Sully, Interesting that you totally ducked my question about whether she would have come to America if it was harder to get in. Funny enough I am an Austinite and we love us some good ol' fashioned muckracking! I'm not for a second siding with companies that exploit illegal workers. I do know that our locak chamber of commerce has repeatedly said that Austin's economy could suffer no economic catastrophy worse than losing all the illegal immigrant labor. I live in a Mexican-American neighborhood and illegal immigrants are all over... not that you can tell them apart from anyone else because they are courtious, hard working, and good people. Funny, another study by the National Research Council indicated that Americans make $1-10 BILLION from immigrant population a year. Since I live in an economy with a scorching housing marketing (thanks to illegals) and a relatively low unemployment rate, I really don't see the problem. What is a problem is that we set up this black market and offer no protections to those who come in to work for us. That is why I'm for amnesty.

SickA and the others who don't see the forest for the trees, Let me put 2 & 2 together: You keep throwing out that these are people who are breaking the law like it is something the average American citizens don't do everyday. You are just using this a your staw man to hold up but in reality illegal as about as arbitrary speeding- you know it is illegal but you do it anyway. Just like us when they get caught they get punished. SickA I might remind that the parable of glass house came from a good book about people who despite being illegal at the time did right by the world and their fellow man. I think you should consider a read. I don't know where you get off with your I'm better than they are attitude- it is not what our country was founded on and it is certainly not why our brave men and women in uniform serve. We are a pillar of light in the world and our purpose is to help our fellow man.

Before I go to bed let me say this, I realize I came out swinging and I really wish I had time today to really let you have it. I just can't shake the feeling that if Mexicans looked like Europeans we wouldn't even be having this debate. Does that make you angry? Well look at this entire thread and see how many times we talked about our northern border, which is rife with human trafficing and drug smuggling. Need more proof than that? Ask why not a single person has mentioned the Russians, who by all estimates constitute one of the largest illegal population in NYC. Ask way it was fine for the Irish, Polish, Italians, and Germans to immigrate but not for Affricans, Chinese, and Latin Americans. Ask why people are offended by Mexican flags at rallies but don't care about Italians being flown all over a city during Columbus day. Start asking the hard question and you'll hear the talk of "pollution" that is whispered in the background of these anti-immigrant crusaders. Then you'll start to see that their real problem is that they fear American will start turning a little darker or *gasp* speak multiple languages. The great white American way is under attack and, rationalize it as they might, at the end of the day that is all it is- rationalizations of racism.

Posted by: SamIam | April 6, 2006 12:47 AM

Emily,
OK, you have had your debate over Zakaria's goody goody WaPo piece. Now its time to read Robert Samuelson's rather more meaty and reality based piece and launch a similar debate on that one.

Samuelson's piece is a pretty good one for you to give US your thoughts on the matter. Would you support the wall and serious interior enforcement of employer sanctions and deportation? That then leaves us with how open should legal immigration be?

You wrote:
"Blogger TC the Terrible believes these lawful paths to citizenship already exist -- illegal immigrants just aren't using them. But are there enough such paths to fill the demand?"

No there aren't. But that isn't really the question is it? Are you suggesting that there should be enough such paths to fill the demand? That all immigrants should be accommodated legally? Or do you think we should limit those paths, and to serve what purposes? To support our unskilled internal wage rates? To protect our cultural sensibilities? To limit the competition for strained social services? To support our unions who are emasculated by the existence of so much cheap unorganized labor. How does a "liberal" voice reconcile itself with these questions?

Posted by: Cayambe | April 6, 2006 01:32 AM

This is funny. Our immigration policy and laws are not being enforced. Change them or enforce them or the public trust will be severely diminished.

When my father's parents came here from eastern europe at the turn of the last century not all of the family was allowed to enter the USA. Guess what? Some ended up going to Mexico. The rest, the ones who stayed in Europe, were never heard from again after WWII.

Now yesterdy, when I drove by a new Wendy's that is being built in my neigborhood, there was not a white face amount the crew working, all of the hispanic.

From reading the WP editorial page today, I understand Wendy's is funding a lots of anti-US worker lobbying. GUESS WHAT? I AIN'T EATING AT WENDY'S ANYMORE!!!!!

What is going on? Is there a holocast in the making happening in Mexico? Why does the US Goverment turn a blind eye to these illegal aliens? They do not like American Citizens? US CITIZENS NEED TO TAKE TO THE STREETS, BOYCOTT THESE US COMPANIES THAT ARE HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS AND DEMOONSTRATE WE ARE GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!

JUST MY OPINION

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 6, 2006 06:15 AM

By the way, this Hispanic crew was doing really nice work, they all seemed content in doing a very good job. American workers should take note.

My beef, so to speak, is not with the illegal aliens per se, but rather Wendy's and their ilk. However, in regard to our illegal aliens, I would hope they would want to become Americans and learn our language, so at least I could talk to them, and not have to rely on handsignals.

I also wonder sometimes, if they like us at all?

It is also in the repeated failure of the US Government to deal with America's problems in a straight forward and honest way. Congress needs to wake up and get to work or we need to get rid of the whole lot of them. And good work that is; not the disengenous pension bill they got drafted up. That is not going to work, just more BS from DC.

"Say one thing; do the other": Our US Government at work!!!!!

Got a' love 'em.
Well I have said enough.
Richard Katz

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 6, 2006 07:34 AM

The Republican party has so dogmatically mismanaged the issue of illegal immigration flows in favor of illegal employers that it will face an historic downfall in the November 2006 elections.
This will be bigger than the loss of the South for generations after its punitive Civil War reconstruction policies. The ruin will not stop then.

Retribution by popular voting will boil long enough to catch up with Senators who are not on the ballot this fall. The people will vote against the sadistic treatment of our own working middle class by craven elected officials. The real political question will surround whether a third party can emerge and identify itself with American interests before the 2008 Presidentials. November, here he come. Using the media to try and change the subject will not help irresponsible incumbents this time.

Posted by: On the plantation | April 6, 2006 07:44 AM

Samlam wrote:
"Since I live in an economy with a scorching housing marketing (thanks to illegals) and a relatively low unemployment rate, I really don't see the problem. What is a problem is that we set up this black market and offer no protections to those who come in to work for us. That is why I'm for amnesty."

You don't see the problem but that does not mean there is no problem. Here are the problems you either do not see or are ignoring:
1) There are many people abiding by the law waiting to enter this country legally. The illegals have cut in front of them and used false documents to do it. There is a legal way for people to enter this country and 800,000 use it wach year. We did not set up a black market.
2) Its more than just breaking a law by jumping a fence. The law continues to be broke by using forged documents for employment and housing.
3) Your job may not be affected but look at those who have to compete with the illegals for jobs. I know many. One is leaving my area because he (a painter) can no longer compete with the low pay the illegals accept. You may not have a problem with this. I wouldn't either if it was a free market, but its not free. Laws to protect Americans were broken by illegals to get to compete with these Americans.
4) You mentioned the scorching housing market which means prices for housing is rising. I guess that's good for you if you already own a house. But if you were thinking of buying one I doubt you would be as happy. You also might wonder how an illegal can get a loan. When I got a loan I had to give up all of my personal information. So how are illegals, who are not citizens nor have proper SS#s getting these loans? Either they are providing false information and/or the loan companies are looking the other way. Are you happy with either of those possibilities?
5) The data shows that wages have been depressed in areas illegals migrate to for low skilled labor. That drives citizens who are on the edge of poverty into poverty.
6) The low fines for the illegals and companies and the large benefits for the companies at the expense of the American worker has caused some companies to knowingly break the law to increase profits. The laws are in place to protect Americans and control immigration. By breaking these laws to increase profits American jobs are forfeited. The unemployment rate among American unskilled labor is over 10% while its only 5% for all jobs. That disparity is caused in large part by illegal immigration.
7) There is a security issue here. Some 9/11 hijackers used forged documents which are prevelent because of the illegal immigration market. Anyone in the world who knows how can come into America and hook into the illegal trade of forge documents. This illegal underground made it easier for the hijackers to live in America as it makes it easier for all illegals to live in America. By not enforcing our laws we leave this country wide open to attack.

That's enough for now. Enjoy living in your happy little town Samlam, watching your house price rise and the labor you hire get cheaper. But wonder who is benefiting and who is paying for your wonderful false economy. Wonder about when these illegals, who started in agrucultural jobs and have now moved to construction and service jobs, will be looking at your job, and when your employer will say you are being paid too much because many of your illegal neighbors are willing to do your job for less pay. And when you tell your boss he cannot hire illegals because the law says he can't, don't be surprised when he laughs in your face as many companies and politicians are laughing in the faces of hard working Americans today.

Posted by: Sully | April 6, 2006 09:35 AM

So much BS. I wonder how much Wendy's donated to there guys' campaign chests? Anyone know how I can find out?

And why do they get to leave with the campaign money anyway, should not that go back to treasure?

From Yahoo News:

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., who has been involved in seeking bipartisan legislation, said in remarks on the Senate floor on Tuesday that the immigration issue had generated an unusual amount of emotion.


Senate debate was marked by an unusually personal speech by Reid after GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record) of Alabama had referred to a position the Nevadan had once taken.

In near-confessional tones, Reid said he had once supported legislation to close the borders between Mexico and the United States, "in effect, stop people from coming across our borders into the United States."

His wife, whose father was a Russian immigrant, confronted him, Reid recalled, and he later held a town hall meeting at which friends told him he had made a mistake.

The bill was a "travesty," he said, the worst mistake of a 40-year career in politics, and "blah blah blah....

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 6, 2006 09:50 AM

I didn't know Wendy's served Kosher, Mr. Katz.

Posted by: Ricardo Rubinowitz | April 6, 2006 09:53 AM

It is obvious that we are all (the average man) being taken advantage of by the multi-national corporations now in control of our Governments.

We must all band to together to take back our government which is supposed to be "by the People" which is us. Illegals and Citizens alike.

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 6, 2006 09:56 AM

Richardo:
I am an American. What are you, a race baiter?

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 6, 2006 09:57 AM

Sully,

Americans who complain about being forced to compete for jobs with illegals have only themselves to blame. In Latin America education has traditionally been of little value. This country, on the other hand, is a self-proclaimed land of opportunity. You snooze you lose, man.

Posted by: Ricardo | April 6, 2006 10:16 AM

Samlam writes:
" You are just using this a your staw man to hold up but in reality illegal as about as arbitrary speeding- you know it is illegal but you do it anyway"

So you advocate anarchy? No law? Thats what this appears Samlam. You are misguided in that you try to make this connection that people break laws all the time, so we shouldn't punish this particular set of lawbreakers. That is completely ignorant Samlam. I understand the point you are trying to make, but it is compounded by one little fact; no one here is advocating for amnesty when we break other laws. If we were saying "we shouldn't get speeding tickets if we speed," or "we shouldn't be arrested when we steal," your arguement would have backing. No one is saying this however. If we speed, we should get tickets. If we steal, we should be arrested. If we enter this country illegally, we should be arressted and deported. You seem to be trying to say that when American citizens break the law, they don't get thrown out of the country. Well, that's because they are American citizens and are punished for the individual crime. If you steal, you get everything confiscated and can get put in jail. If you speed, you get ticketed and can have your license revoked or be arressted, depending on how often and how fast. If you kill, you get your freedom taken away and are put in prison. If you enter this country illegally, you get taken out of the country. How is this unfair to illegal aliens? Do you not expect them to follow the rest of our laws when they are here? Your argument makes no sense.

Im seeing "the forest for the trees" Samlam. I don't think you can say the same.

Posted by: Freedom | April 6, 2006 10:20 AM

Chris Ford,

"Alberto -

WTF does your post have to do with the thread topic?"

What it has to do with the post is how over the last five years the righty bushies have placed loyal, but totally unquailified, neo-con hacks in positions responsible for stemming illegal immigration. The neo-con position is to allow illegal immigaration.

Posted by: CHE, Jr. | April 6, 2006 10:21 AM

Getting a tad defensive, Mr. Katz? By the way, it's Ricardo, not "Richardo".

Posted by: Ricardo | April 6, 2006 10:23 AM

Ricardo argues,
"Americans who complain about being forced to compete for jobs with illegals have only themselves to blame. In Latin America education has traditionally been of little value. This country, on the other hand, is a self-proclaimed land of opportunity. You snooze you lose, man."

If Americans are complaining about competing with illegal immigrants, for the purpose of drafting illegal immigration laws and enforcing them, they are working to end the problem. If you use this "land of oppurtunity" excuse and say if you snooze you lose, you lose your arguement. They obviously aren't snoozing as they are trying to get illegals deported. By your own logic, if illegals get deported, its cause in this land of oppurtunity, they must have been snoozing.

Posted by: Freedom | April 6, 2006 10:26 AM

Ricardo,

Not to mention that if education is so important as you say, it can be linked to the desire for competitive, legal wages. When wages are being depressed due to an influx of illegals that can be paid subpar, its only to be expected that their will be complaints as the concept of fair competition, something this country strongly believed in, becomes nonexistant.

Posted by: Freedom | April 6, 2006 10:28 AM

Ricardo wrote:
"Americans who complain about being forced to compete for jobs with illegals have only themselves to blame. In Latin America education has traditionally been of little value. This country, on the other hand, is a self-proclaimed land of opportunity. You snooze you lose, man."

No, they have the lack of American law enforcement to blame. Look, those who are illegally here, work illegally or hire the illegal are breaking laws that protect Americans. Americans compete well enough with each other for unskilled jobs. To flood this country with 12M unskilled laborers and call it fair competition is uninformed at best and sinister at worst. American companies and illegals break the law to benefits themselves at the expense of America's unskilled labor force. If you're happy to let them compete, imagine skilled American labor illegally flooding central and south America and forcing those who are in good skilled jobs out of them. If we did that we'd be called imperialists, exploiters and occupiers.

Why can't you understand that breaking immigration laws is not ok? There are consequences to others and people are hurt. Do you care?

Posted by: Sully | April 6, 2006 10:31 AM

Hey Richardo:

Okay, you got me. I don't eat at Wendy's in the first place, so it was easy for me to pledge never to go to Wendy's again.

But I don't eat Kosher either so you should not assume that just because I have a big nose and air is free that means I am jewish.

This is America. I am a melting post baby and there are more behind me. Only in America.

Richard Katz

Sorry about misspelling the name Richardo.

Posted by: Richard Katz | April 6, 2006 10:48 AM

Sully & Co,

Companies that hire Latinos with documents (whether forged or not) have to pay them at least the legal minimal wage, which they do. If the job can be done at less expense, why should they pay more? That's business. I don't see any unfair competition here. Imagine the hypothetical: Latinos deported and every unskilled US citizen demands $50/hour... The consumer prices will get exorbitant, not to mention other undesirable consequences.

Now, let's get practical, shall we? Would you rather pay an Anglo, say, plumber, $100 for a 15-minite job or find a Latino who would be happy to unclog your toilet for $40, if not less??? Be honest.

Again, to be pefectly honest, would you rather call a legal moving company that will set you back at least half a grand or hire couple of illegals who would gladly move you for $50?

Posted by: Ricardo | April 6, 2006 12:10 PM

Katz? .. Not Jewish? What's the joke?..

Anyhow, God bless America.

Posted by: Ricardo | April 6, 2006 12:17 PM

Yah, but Ricardo, if Americans get the laws over illegal immigration enforced so they can demand higher wages, whats the problem? If they didn't come in legally or get residency, they only have themselves to blame. This is the self proclaimed land of oppurtunity. You snooze you lose, man.

Posted by: Geb | April 6, 2006 12:27 PM

Geb,
it's not the Latinos who whine about depressed wages and "unfair" competition: some US citizens do. Most Latinos don't need any "immigration reform" and pefectly happy with the way things are. Except for that stupid wall, of course. The common perception that ALL illegals are striving for legal residenship is incorrect.

As I said, the problem with higher wages for American blue collar workers is higher consumer prices, for one. You'll be paid more, BUT you'll also pay more. Get it, Geb?

Posted by: Ricardo | April 6, 2006 12:52 PM

Ricardo wrote:
"Companies that hire Latinos with documents (whether forged or not) have to pay them at least the legal minimal wage, which they do. If the job can be done at less expense, why should they pay more? That's business. I don't see any unfair competition here."

Only if you are dealing here with an honest company that was fooled by the illegals fake documents. I guess you never heard of paying under the table or considered that someone who would knowingly hires illegals, and thus breaks the law, really cares about minimum wage laws. Get real Ricardo.

He continues...
"Imagine the hypothetical: Latinos deported and every unskilled US citizen demands $50/hour... The consumer prices will get exorbitant, not to mention other undesirable consequences."

No Ricardo. With an unskilled unemployment rate of over 10% there would now be jobs available for those currently unemployed.

He continues:
"Now, let's get practical, shall we? Would you rather pay an Anglo, say, plumber, $100 for a 15-minite job or find a Latino who would be happy to unclog your toilet for $40, if not less??? Be honest."

Now we get to the heart of it all right Ricardo? I would pay the honest amount. If I pay the illegal $40 I am breaking the law. I am also denying an American an honest wage. Sorry Ricardo, I look at a bigger picture than just my own situation. I actually care about America.

Ricardo continues:
"Again, to be pefectly honest, would you rather call a legal moving company that will set you back at least half a grand or hire couple of illegals who would gladly move you for $50?"

Ok, Ricardo, you have proven yourself to be part of the problem. You only offer solutions that hurt American workers at the expense of people who have broken the law. That's unAmerican Ricardo and supports law breaking. I hope the day comes when the ICE shows up and asks you why you are hiring an illegal to fix your toilet or move your belongings. You tell them what you said here, that you were trying to just save a few dollars, and hope that keeps you out of trouble. Get real Ricardo, you are breaking the law if you hire an illegal and you are hurting America for your own selfish reasons.

Posted by: Sully | April 6, 2006 12:59 PM

Ricardo, you miss my point.
Illegal immigrants are now whining about US citizens wanting to enforce US laws. So if that happens, hey- its not our fault. They should have done this all the legal way. You snooze you lose, man.

In terms of raising prices, they might. Not too high though. Consumers will only pay a certain amount. Companies and businesses know this. To charge too much will be suicide. Companies would go into their profit margin and return to the types of profits that were once had before illegal immigration became the problem it is today. Companies will complain, but that is to be expected. This benefits America more.

Posted by: Geb | April 6, 2006 01:20 PM

Probably wasted keystrokes, but I sent a short message to both Senators promising in all future elections to vote against any member of Congress who approves the immigration bill coming out of today's negotiations.

Huge miscalculation. On to November!!

Posted by: On the plantation | April 6, 2006 01:39 PM

Sully,

I find your naiveté childlike. The companies do NOT pay Latinos "under the table". They take SSNs and put them on the payroll like everyone else. Say, construction companies are not in the biz of verifying whether SSN legit or not, the Government is. So IRS figures it out, yet, understandably, does nothing about it either: all they need is tax revenues.

Cash employment is common in cash businesses such as restaurants. That is a preferred mode of payment for substantial number of US citizens as well, by the way.

As for your accusations, if your idea of hurting America is refusal to get ripped off by paying a U.S. born locksmith $100 for 10 minutes of work, than we have a serious problem here. Who does that locksmith think he (or she) is, a top notch attorney?.. A CEO?.. F*** him (or her).

You also show ignorance in legal matters: for my own money I can hire anyone I please, regardless of race, sex, age, size, color of the skin or immigration status.

Posted by: Ricardo | April 6, 2006 02:03 PM

Ricardo-

"Now, let's get practical, shall we? Would you rather pay an Anglo, say, plumber, $100 for a 15-minite job or find a Latino who would be happy to unclog your toilet for $40, if not less??? Be honest."

What a perfect example of the Wal-Mart mentality. "It does not matter if I break the law, hurt blue collar Americans, or exploit the illegal immigrant, as long as I get what I want."

You may have saved money, sir, but at the cost of your honor. I presume it was a bargain.

Posted by: wiccan | April 6, 2006 03:14 PM

"Illegal immigrants are now whining about US citizens wanting to enforce US laws."

Speak for yourself, Geb. Besides, how precisely would you "enforce" US laws when it comes to immigration? Mass deportations, the wall along the border?... Those are nothing but xenophobic fantasies of the bunch of bigots in Congress. The wall, if feasable, will cause more harm than good.

"Companies would go into their profit margin and return to the types of profits that were once had before illegal immigration became the problem it is today."

Illegal immigration today is what it's always been. "Immigration problem" is a government propaganda. Call it thought control, Ged.

Posted by: Richard | April 6, 2006 03:33 PM

Ricardo:

"Now, let's get practical, shall we? Would you rather pay an Anglo, say, plumber, $100 for a 15-minite job or find a Latino who would be happy to unclog your toilet for $40, if not less??? Be honest."

This will eventually fix itself. The question consumers will be asking, soon, is not "Should I pay an American 60$ or an illegal Mexican 40$ to fix my toilet?" As soon as we start enforcing the actual law the consumer will have to ask "Should i pay an American 60$ or should I pay an illegal Mexican 40$ plus the additional 1,000$ fine to fix my toilet?"

If you want me to be honest I would rather pay the American 60$ than the Mexican 40$ and the government 1,000$. Just me.

Posted by: Will | April 6, 2006 03:38 PM

Hey, Samlam, I found your racist:

"Again, to be pefectly honest, would you rather call a legal moving company that will set you back at least half a grand or hire couple of illegals who would gladly move you for $50?"

Because illegals sure aren't worth as much as Americans.

He's a classist too:

"As for your accusations, if your idea of hurting America is refusal to get ripped off by paying a U.S. born locksmith $100 for 10 minutes of work, than we have a serious problem here. Who does that locksmith think he (or she) is, a top notch attorney?.. A CEO?.. F*** him (or her)."

Because anyone who works with their hands can't be as valuable as a white collar worker.

You may fire when ready, Samlam.

Posted by: | April 6, 2006 03:44 PM

IF YOU weren't the ones conning your way into our

pocketbooks...


you'd be voting against yourselves, for the same reason that you're here...


it's better to live here than in Mehico.


because we faught your battle, and you're trying to steal our economy...
the reason being you don't have the CAJONES to make your country comparable to the United States...

_your_ lack of initiative, is asking our people to bear the load of

your laziness and fear....

for the rest of you, United States Citizens, immigrated legally or born here of immigrants...


you're mealy mouthed south of the border

NOTfriends are ruining your economy, but so are these things...


out sourcing

downsizing

in addition to:

illegals


help people that have money and have nothing to fear, because they don't work for a living they run things....


you can't get their job...


bush and his friends are those people, they are landed, aristocrats, they are born to money


the others from other countries are used to working with corruption as a tool, and are importing _that_ along with their business practices that say taking advantage of

peasants....you're moving into the peasant class

is _normal_


you have a few years _before_ you have _NO_ _CHOICE_

use it to make sure you do.

vote democracy back in.

.

ps. I saw a restaurant to day, a chain food restaurant that is owned and run by illegals,

guess who they're hiring _illegals_


it's called a gateway experience, when one gets enough money to send for the other 40 relatives to work for them...at half pay...

good by America hello Mehico...in your lifetime...


hell everywhere, corruption, exploitation.

thanks so much to your congress, president and all those affluents who hire without thought to other peoples outside of their immediate group.

.

Posted by: dear illegal aliens... | April 6, 2006 04:36 PM

Ricardo pontificated:
"You also show ignorance in legal matters: for my own money I can hire anyone I please, regardless of race, sex, age, size, color of the skin or immigration status."

You are SO wrong about that last part Ricardo. Check out Title 8 U.S.C. especially section 1324. Its a crime to hire an illegal. Here's the relevent part of section 1324. Read it and weep:

"It is unlawful for a person or other entity -
(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section) with respect to such employment, or
(B)(i) to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of
subsection (b) of this section or (ii) if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of title 29), to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section."

Oh, and the IRS sends companies info about SS#s that do not match other information provided by the employee or SS#s that do not exist. An employer knows when they have a bad SS#. The government just does not follow up or enforce its own laws.

Posted by: Sully | April 6, 2006 05:01 PM

Get real, Sully.

Posted by: Ricardo | April 6, 2006 05:12 PM

Richard states:
"Speak for yourself, Geb."

That's what I thought I was doing. I didn't say all US citizens now, did I? I merely spoke for myself and took the liberty of making the word plural as in this discussion, at least one more citizen has asked that the US enforce it laws.

"Illegal immigration today is what it's always been. "Immigration problem" is a government propaganda. Call it thought control, Ged. "

Hmm, care to look at the history books, friend? Illegal immigration has not always been this way, if simply because 500 years ago, we weren't a country with our own laws regarding it. Hate to get all technical with you, but that seems to be the route you are trying to take with the above comment. That said, Illegal immigration only started to become a problem in this country in the later half of the last century for various social and political reasons. Might want to check your facts there.

Thanks for playing.
Coming soon, "The Debate" home version where you can make stupid comments without fear of someone actually calling you on them.

Posted by: Geb | April 6, 2006 05:16 PM

Ricardo,
Do you actually review this or simply assume how it should be?
MSN actually ran a story last week regarding illegal immigration and social security numbers. Each year, the IRS reports approximately 9 million cases where wrong numbers are filed. They estimate that the majority are either fake or dupilicate numbers used by illegal immigratns. In the case of the fake numbers, this results in problems for the true person in possession of the number. They get hindered getting government aid for school, claiming disability or unemployment, and paying their overall taxes. Not to mention that if an illegal takes out a loan for a car or house using a stolen number, that person can become responsible for the debt.

I think you're the one that needs to get real Ricardo.

Posted by: Freedom | April 6, 2006 05:19 PM

For that matter Ricardo, Sully actually backed up his assertation with US law. You know, that thing that we are supposed to live by? The thing that we are claiming should be enforced by anyone in the country? What have you backed up your claim with, other than your own seemingly fanciful notions?

Posted by: Freedom | April 6, 2006 05:26 PM

the "illegals" will become law-abiding given the chance...


right, that's why they butted in line in front of the other people...


that's why they entered illegally...

I see corruption as part of the illegal problem...

.........................

it's interesting to me, that congress and this administration don't have any response to the word

illegal,

without permission,

without asking,

against the law....


maybe it's because they don't actually uphold the laws that they pass, or attempt

to use

against you....


maybe they're scofflaws.


What would a scofflaw do if you fined them $2,000 and made them return to Mehico _sometime_ ?

I think they wouldn't tell you they're illegal and would pay someone to make them false citizenship papers...


these are the kind of people that want to invite themselves to be your neighbors....and they won't be hiring you if they make it big...

bambino...

gatto gordo's...

.

Posted by: I guess that was one of the most laughable things that the president said today... | April 6, 2006 06:30 PM

illegals are


highly motivated workers? for themselves.


let them change their own countries...will they do that if they're here?


no, we will become the same countries that they left behind...corrupt, poor, lower standards of living, life and more crime.

.

Posted by: what happens when you invite people that break the law to get away with it... | April 6, 2006 06:37 PM

hey buddy, ricarrrrrrrrrrthdo...pssst!


pitting peasants against peasants is what you're advocating...


you really need to get it, there's a problem here.


and you're part of it.


your people need to change their home countries, not take over someone else's because you don't have the cajones to get the job done at home.


why can't the peasants change things at home, because they're too far removed? They don't have access to power? Where's your courage to make the world a better place? It doesn't exist in you? You want to come here and game us, and make your mindset, _corruption_ okay, predominat?

We're already fighting the president about that attitude....why do we need to fight you too?

I can play your game punk, but you need to get it, _your_ peasants are being played against _our_ peasants...


the reason, to make more _peasants_ and to remove what once made the United States great...a certain level of "I care about you," that we the people earned.


you want to have a bigger piece of the pie then effing deserve it....be honest, change your own country, don't try to steal someone elses...fight for reform in Mehico


If there is no _standard_ (of behavior) to point to and it's always okay because someone else did it first (sin) then what's the point? Make your country great too.........can't do that? Why not, democracy doesn't work if the landed control everything and the people got nothing?

you want that to happen here too right? fogeddaaboutit.....grow up, become honest and demand honesty!

stealing is not the same as earning....although I'm sure that you'll find some reason to justify your lack of maniliness...it's a spanish thing...

.

Posted by: that's pitting not pitying... | April 6, 2006 06:40 PM

Let me see if I have the Senate compromise plan right. If you've been here five years, you stay. If you've been here less than two years, you go home. In between, you get set to become an official guest.

OK, then in the future, once you've been here five years, the rules are reversed, and you plan on leaving after one more year as the guest limit is six. If you had been here before but not more than two years, you may or may not become one of these guests, because you get in line behind guests who haven't been here before.

Yep, seem's like a product of real "hard work" on the part of the Senate to achieve this solution. Wonder how this model works for illegal Asians?

Posted by: On the plantation | April 6, 2006 07:07 PM

On the plantation-

This plan was brought to you by the same folks who came up with the Medicare prescription plan. The one where it pays up to a certain point, then it doesn't pay, then it pays again. Those bozos could screw up a wet dream.

Posted by: wiccan | April 6, 2006 07:21 PM

Ricardo:

"Now, let's get practical, shall we? Would you rather pay an Anglo, say, plumber, $100 for a 15-minite job or find a Latino who would be happy to unclog your toilet for $40, if not less??? Be honest."

"Again, to be pefectly honest, would you rather call a legal moving company that will set you back at least half a grand or hire couple of illegals who would gladly move you for $50?"

Yeah, Bozo, and if that Latino breaks your toilet bowl or those illegals drop your hi-def plasma tv, what the hell are you going to do? Call the INS and turn them in?

"As for your accusations, if your idea of hurting America is refusal to get ripped off by paying a U.S. born locksmith $100 for 10 minutes of work, than we have a serious problem here. Who does that locksmith think he (or she) is, a top notch attorney?.. A CEO?.. F*** him (or her)."

Yeah, why should a US surgeon get $50,000 for your open-heart surgery when a Mexican can do it for $10,000?

I'm an American, I'm blue-collar, and I'm damn proud of being both. You, however, are either a neo-con or stupid, and even neo-cons shouldn't be that stupid.

Posted by: Average American | April 6, 2006 07:47 PM

to buy prescription drugs from


CANADA

or

MEXICO


because it causes unfair competition for pharmaceutical companies...


that's just before he cut the deal with AARP to have them sell his new medicare plan that reduced MEDICAL EXPENSE PAYMENTS by $30 a month per recipient....


most people that use social security or medicare to pay for things are on FIXED INCOME....


that means they have less medicine that they can buy....


and he made it illegal to buy it from an out of country source...

but he wants to sell


_YOU_


illegal effing aliens...

fauntleroy, don't live in your world.

smoke pot, snort coke, alcoholic, job failure, dui, marginal student, ill-spoken, draft dodger....


but he's got a dad with deep pockets and he's got connections...


he's your effin president...

I don't even dislike him, he's the visible representative of a corrupt system that fosters cronyism and corruption...and the return of favors....how many things has he signed without reading them?


I mean this guy has broken more laws that Nixon, or Clinton ever dreamed of and he keeps ticking...


does a preemptive strike, occupation, for oil and control...calls it a war, invents terrorists...he should know we funded Al Queerda...WMD? Iraqi connection? NO

NSA wire taps...today, they say, oh well, maybe we would tap citizens...if it seemed like we needed to....you know if they were talking trash about a corporation or something...attacking walmart in a post or something...

Guy starts talking trash about his subtrefuge/ploy/story about Uranium enrichment program, endangers his CIA agent wife, knowingly....then says he'll fire whoever is responsible when we catch them....has he done that?

Vice President does a fund raiser for an accused, soon to be convicted felon in Houston this last December at the Houston Galleria...connections with Cunning-ham, DEAL AY!, and Noriega...as weelll as Abramoff...


I would guess the congress, must be even more corrupt...keeping thier fingers in their pockets...

and they don't want the pot calling the kettle black thing to become visible...


I say arrest a slew of them...


sort of like firing a shot accross the bow of a drug boat...let's 'em know...pull over, or prepare to disembark to the other side...

thanks so much.

.

Posted by: and this is the president that says it's not a good idea... | April 6, 2006 08:00 PM

come on, let's dance...

show _me_ your fallicious reasoning...


or don't you know what that is...


commutative theory?

.

Posted by: hey, samlan...hey clueless.. | April 6, 2006 08:02 PM

a felony.

and enforce it...


I guarantee you that the air will go out of a lot of sails that don't have


your best interests at heart...


there is a path to becoming a citizen that has to do with legal immigration and going through a process...

you are disrespecting those that have obeyed and respected American laws by granting

anything to people that took what they wanted....for whatever reason...

as I understand it leniency is granted if there are life threatening circumstances at home, and so forth...


I don't have any thing against any race, creed or whatever...


I would look a little skeptically at Catholic support of illegals as most illegals, though illegal are catholic...


I'm not a big fan of using gawd as a premise for political action....or of forgiving what doesn't need to be forgiven...


scofflaws.

next people to investigate should be your congress....breaking the law, seems to be alright with them...from

their behavior....presidents leading on that one!!!!!!!!!!.

.

Posted by: the smartest thing this country can do for itself is to make hiring an illegal... | April 6, 2006 09:15 PM

think we'll get away with it?

and your uncle in Alexandria how about that eh?

sweet>>>>>>.

.

Posted by: ricardo, eh wot's goin on man eh?... | April 6, 2006 10:33 PM

ummm Freedom, I think you missed the point or, more accurately, slipped down the slope. The argument isn't that there should be no laws but rather that there are laws that we either consider minor (or even outmoded, in the case of certain blue laws) that we willingly break in full recognition of the consequences. To build an argument against illegal immigrants centered around illegality seems a weak, just like the trying to make the argument here in Texas that homosexuality is wrong because sodomy is illegal.

Will, Your refutation of Fareed was that it depressed wages? Really? I mean, really? Talk about grasping at straws! So we should really forget the most rubust economy in our nation's history for that? I'm no economist but you would think that decreased wages at the end the 80's could have been key to lowering inflationary pressures that, compounded by the collapse of the junk bond, threatened the US economy. Oh yeah, that and the fact the history went on to show that the economy managed to survive quite well.

As for whoever the brilliant mind who wanted to dance with me... I give you high marks on your vocabulary. Judging by your Joycian punctuation and your stunning master of the whole "Name" portion of the comments I can only conclude that I am thoroughly outclassed. Let me guess, you kinda tired yourself out googling philosophic reasoning phrases and just didn't have the energy to put forth an argument. Happens to the best of them, I guess!

Posted by: SamIam | April 7, 2006 12:51 AM

Samlam,
I don't think I'm missing the point. If you want laws changed, you create a movement based on altering the laws; legally through legislation or illegally through revolution. The point is, there is a law in place. This law is currently being broken. If people don't like it, change it. This isn't happening. If anything, the opposite is true. People are advocating for enforcement of the law. A law has now been drafted and we will see where it goes.

You state it perfectly;
"The argument isn't that there should be no laws but rather that there are laws that we either consider minor (or even outmoded, in the case of certain blue laws) that we willingly break in full recognition of the consequences."
Yes, this is exactly how it is. If there is a law that we break, we expect to be persecuted if caught. Thats how the system is supposed to work. In the case of the Texas law, if that happened, it would be lawful. It would most likely lead to a challenge to get the law overturned, but nonetheless, it would still be considered the law. If an illegal is deported, he is free to use whatever legal means are at his disposal to fight the ruling and remain in the country. If the justice system rules against him, however, then he's out.

How is this hard to understand?

Posted by: Freedom | April 7, 2006 02:16 AM

Samlam,
Your arguments could be used to justify any illegal activity. Do illegal drugs really harm the economy or anything else? Some would say they actually help the economy. How about speeding, or burglery, or rape? I mean, do these things really make life any worse for America? You argue that the depression of wages by illegals helped lower inflation and was thus good. All I can say to you is I hope a tree falls on your house so you can increase your income through the insurance claim, or your car is vandalized so you can get a new one. You sound very much like Barbara Bush who said of the victims of Katrina that they are living better after Katrina than before Katrina. That is sick Samlam. The law is there to protect Americans and it is being ignored by the government to the detriment of Americans. This government is again failing to protect Americans.

Its unAmerican to break the law Samlam and Congress is vastly under-estimating the mood of this country. If law breakers are once again given amnesty by a republican government, that will be it for me and many who ever considered voting for them. I play by the law Samlam. I pay a ticket if I speed or run a red light. I pay my taxes. I get a visa if I travel overseas to work. I renew my drivers license and car tags. I pay my insurance as required by my mortgage company for my house and my auto insurance for my car. I pay for medical insurance for my family to keep them safe and in the best health. I have life insurance in case something happens to me. So I really get annoyed when I hear someone telling me that breaking the law is ok because some laws are just on the books and not serious. I get really annoyed when someone tells me that illegals do not break the law because they don't feel like they are breaking a law, or that employers that illegally hire them are just trying to lower the price of their services. And I get especially annoyed when you say that hiring an illegal is good for me and the American economy while I say good bye to a friend who is leaving my area due to competition from illegal aliens.

Lawlessness will prevail when laws are not enforced and today we have 12 million law breakers thumbing their noses at America, and Congress is looking to compromise. Its time to clean up Congress and sweep the illegals back where they came from and regain the rule of law.

We should start first with those that hire the illegal. Give them 2 months to clean up their companies and then crack down. We know which companies have illegals. We know because they supply false information on the I-9 forms that is quickly validated as false by the IRS. We know those who are paid by companies but do not file taxes. It would not take much effort in this day of computerized records to determine who is an illegal.

But the real key is to deny the employer any hint that he could get away with hiring an illegal. Make employment for illegals very difficult and you will see a mass self-deportation. Its not hard folks. The laws already exist. It just will take the politicians to wake up and listen to Americans who want the laws enforced. These laws (IRCA) were passed when the republicans gave illegals amnesty the last time in 1986. Do you really believe that these new laws they propose to stop illegal immigration will be enforced with this new amnesty? Face it, the politicians want companies to have cheap labor at the expense of working Americans. They no longer represent working Americans, so its time for them to go.

Posted by: Sully | April 7, 2006 09:57 AM

Samlam-

You and Mr. Fareed are the ones grasping at straws. Mr. Fareed defends a position that wasn't taken. No one has claimed that amnesty will destroy our economy, I'm certain it will survive. It is wage effects of amnesty that concern me. In 1986 amnesty encouraged further illegal immigration which is why we had 2 million illegal immigrants then and 12 million today. If we continue to operate under virtual open borders the effect on native workers will lower wages or unemployment. This race-to-the-bottom is something I would rather avoid.

Posted by: Will | April 7, 2006 10:12 AM

you turn a pretty phrase, but as to intellectual discourse you're somewhat deficient...

don't depress wages eh?


well, why don't you poll wages? why don't you talk to someone not in your class?


spinning a theory is exactly what a Washingtonian economist would do that doesn't have the strength of character to actually check things out.


as I've said enumerous times:

outsourcing^

moving companies overseas>

"internationalizing" corporations so that they don't adhere to standards of behavior of one country nor support one country and in fact use them against each other in order to depress wages as well as benefits...

as in "we can pay this much in bosnia, why should we pay more than that to keep operations here....even though we get treated, in selling, as_if we were American."

hiring of illeagals is actually the same thing as

outsourcing all of the jobs that need a " physical_presence "

to _illegals_

there have been numerous posts about electricians, painters, landscapers, bricklayers and so forth not being able to compete with contractors that hire illegals...

that to be competitive _they_ must hire illegals or bid so low as to make it contraproductive...marginal income from the jobs...


one of the things that I have noted since the inception of the current trend to returning to the Robber Barron mentality of the pre 1900's mentality is that

no one ever stops working,

temp workers have replaced fully-employed workers with benefits and layoff protection...


if you've got a class of peasants that are willing to compete with your peasants and you're a landowner/landholder/some-form-of-priveleged _like Walmart_

then it's all good.

you hire them and pocket the difference that you charge for your bid....you will be paying them less than you would legals...

ask the people that regularly hire and charge the illegals for the privelege of hiring them...


thanks for your witty comments, your well written and obviously get paid for what you do...

however, your logic is weak as is your character...

you're welcome to continue, but you will recieve a good hiding...


sammy

boston...eh?

ha ha ha.

come closer samwise, I shall teach you to fly.

.

but the "illegal" thing has more to do with corruption and continured

short sightedness by a class of people to the rest of the people in the United States


the other thing is that the illegals


aren't here to become Americans,

they are here for the money,

they have a mindset, that they picked up in their home countries

that _corruption_ is okay


and they don't have the courage to change their own country

right?

come on small one, let's finish this

I've got a couple of minutes free today...

bend over.

.

Posted by: dear mr fallicious reasoning... | April 7, 2006 01:03 PM

Sully,
I agree, the 1986 IRCA did make employers very cautious for about 2 years.

Here's a observation...
In California today, some municipalities confiscate the vehicles of persons attemting to pick up prostitutes.

Is soliciting prostitution any more illegal than soliciting illegal work, and therefore illegal profits?

Why should we give employers more time to clean up their act? They've already had 20 years to comply.

Current workplace enforcement relies on raids and deportation - aka the caught red-handed approach.

Instead of chasing undocumented people all over the countryside - why not have the undocumented bring ICE the names and addresses of the all the past lawbreakers who own assets and have home addresses?

I hate to keep harping on this, but...
100% of illegal aliens are witnesses to employer crime -- and now that they have a lobby, "organized employer crime."

Some illegal aliens would deserve concessions for helping solve the immigration problem, others will self- deport as the Latin American economy picks up.

The money for a border fence would be better spent on hiring prosecutors.

Posted by: eSparky | April 7, 2006 01:08 PM

don't do so well on observation.

the problem with scholars in all situations is that they depend upon the reasoning of others and are thus

limited by their own lack of ability to clearly perceive a

situation that falls outside of their perusal of the tomes of educated reasoning...somewhat like the caricature in Baron Munchausen of a civilian leader...


which they love so dearly to the extent that you can smell it on their breath...

so keenly do they hold their beliefs to have been created by those much smarter than themselves..


they mistake "the map" for the "territory"

alas, I shall spank them mercilessly for their foolishness...

Posted by: it's interesting that those that put forth an argument... | April 7, 2006 01:08 PM

with logic and thus the theory of gates and software writing

like a case statement, although it came forth I think with Leibniz, and the whole logick machine thing

for some reason I'm picking up Bernoulli but hey...what do I know...


it simply means small minds, not grasping the import of their statements and making errors in

attribution and linking, implications that aren't is what it is dude.

.

Posted by: ps. fallicious reasoning has more to do | April 7, 2006 01:20 PM

Good points eSparkey. You may want to follow the Mohawk Carpet law suit. It may be another way to begin enforcing IRCA not fromthe government but by American employees suing the pants of their companies that actively hire illegals and depress their wages as a result. Here's a link:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021406dnbusRicosuit.d1aef3f.html

This case is coming up soon and if the employees win, watch out illegals, it won't be the feds you need to look out for, its your jobmate. And this is a RICO suit, meaning the employees are claiming the hiring of illegals is an organized crime between Mohawk, hiring agencies and even cayotes who smuggle them into the US. Convictions under RICO are nasty and will really get the attention of companies unlawfully hiring illegals.

I can also see companies that are honest suing companies that hire illegals as hurting their business through unfair business practices. I hope that people start taking the laws we have and using them instead of waiting for this lazy administration and congress to do anything.

Posted by: Sully | April 7, 2006 01:53 PM

Here's another link about the Mohawk lawsuit:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_13/b3977087.htm

Posted by: Sully | April 7, 2006 01:55 PM

Thanks Sully,

I was aware of the Tyson Foods RICO suit, but not the Mohawk Carpet suit.

I believe that RICO also lowers the standard of proof -- imagine 30 or 40 immigrants coming forward against an employer in lawsuits.

Off to read your link now...

Posted by: eSparky | April 7, 2006 02:10 PM

sounds like a work around, that may fix the breakage.

.

Posted by: good posts eSparky and Sully.. | April 7, 2006 02:38 PM

Good linkup Sully,

The central theme(s) against employer sanctions seem to be...

1) It would cause employers to become law enforcement.

My former business accumulated tens of thousands of dollars in tax withholdings -- payments made quarterly. Without tax withholdings it would be probably impossible to enforce tax laws too.

2) Business wouldn't be able to compete!

I asked a sharp painting contractor (former accountant), if the price of gasoline went to $8.00 per gallon would it hurt your business?

He quickly replied, "No, because my competitor would also have to pay..."

3) Business would lose productivity.

Yesterday I was on a stucco job where there were 8 workers. 20 years ago, the staffing for the same job would have been 2 maybe 3 workers. I've heard stories of a superman plasterer that could feed a gun, plaster and clean by himself -- now that's productivity.

Posted by: eSparky | April 7, 2006 03:08 PM

enforcing the actual law the consumer will have to ask "Should i pay an American 60$ or should I pay an illegal Mexican 40$ plus the additional 1,000$ fine to fix my toilet?"


In your dreams, Will.

Posted by: Ricardo | April 7, 2006 03:12 PM

In the near future Ricardo.

Posted by: Sully | April 7, 2006 03:16 PM

"Average American", you sound way above average.

For a blue collar, that is. I wouldn't brag about it though.

Posted by: Ricardo | April 7, 2006 03:29 PM

Ricardo-

I must be dreaming because the House bill passed and the Senate bill stalled.

From an April 1st, 2006 Rasmusson poll:

"Two-thirds (68%) of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration while just 20% disagree. The belief that the issue could be addressed adds to the intensity of the debate.

A similar number (66%) believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach."

Do you like BBQ sauce?

Posted by: Will | April 7, 2006 03:36 PM

I agree with Sully,

Sting operations at Home Depot to bust the employer. Just like prostitution, maybe the cops will keep your tools instead of your car. LOL

Posted by: eSparky | April 7, 2006 03:40 PM

Awwww, how cute. Ricardo has no more arguements so he falls back on 'In your dreams,' and like statements.

It's ok little Ricardo. Maybe someday, you can play with the big boys and stay up past 8!

Posted by: Geb | April 7, 2006 03:52 PM

I just want to say to Mr Zakaria that I look forward to each of your articles in Newsweek. I admire your critical thinking ability and your ability to remember the human side of the stories.

Posted by: tom | April 7, 2006 04:32 PM

that is going to make him rich.


when he gets his own squad of illegals from el salabador....

aint that raht michael?

.

Posted by: ricard o doesn't have ideas he follows his uncles lead... | April 7, 2006 04:54 PM

Ricardo:

Reading your posts, I cannot believe the contempt you have for the American blue collar worker. I take that back, you don't respect the Latino worker either. Here's hoping you get caught hiring your illegals, because you can't hire them to do your jail time.

Bubba, I'd like you to meet Ricardo. Ricardo, Bubba.

Posted by: Average American | April 7, 2006 05:07 PM

ultimately, what is being advocated is

peasants fighting peasants..

homegrown, vs _illegal_

willing to take your land without earning it by becoming citizens....going through the same process as your parents.

.they want to butt in line...because they're Mexicans...and if you don't give them what they want, they'll take their flags and "go home," or start trouble...which is it? who cares?


as the reich take advantage of both groups, and use them against each other...


you're being sold out by your owners, dear slaves.


that's what you're not addressing, and to some extent I consider that elitist cowardice.

as outsourcing takes hold and more jobs move overseas, and our citizens start being treated like 3rd world citizens...and the ones that are maintaining their tenuous hold on the middle class


look at this:

we just passed laws allowing unpaid overtime

we just passed laws reducing benefits for social security and medicare, reduced foodstamps by $380 million

with the incursion of outsourcing was a surge in bankruptcies that we passed tougher laws to protect the corporations

but not the citizens.

we increased tax breaks for the richest 3 percent...which in effect would pretty much embrace the corporations...


who would allowing illegal immigrants to come in more easily help?


those that want to pay less money for labor,

the corporations.


who would catering to illegal immigrants hurt?

those who would have to share an increasingly smaller pie...


americans peasants: service sector, which has been expanding rapidly over the last 20 years as

blue collar jobs with benefits move overseas.


we have enough tired and poor here, that aren't being taken care of.


you want the world to be a better place, you don't import 3rd world conditions into the United States...


you create a barrier between them and the United States and require that the osmotic financial and human rights equalize before the barrier is brought down...


we have lost blood, and our citizens are sick and have diminished financial capacity and diminished hope and future....


fix that first.

require that other countries meet or beat standards that we held in the 70's as far as labor laws and benefits are concerned and bring those same laws back into the United States

closing the border to goods that were made where labors laws are nonexistent, even if the companies that are using those peasants are "american owned,"


all arguments otherwise are not understanding the situation for what it is:

a capitulation of responsibility for American citizens rights and benefits, when WE made this country and it's corporations successful...


"your tired and poor"


makes sense when we are in an expansionist mode, and every person is needed...


that's why they sent prisoners to Australia..


we are creating tired and poor, working 60 hours with no benefits and working for Addeco, or other Temp labor organizations that can fire, lay-off, or not find jobs for those that don't meet their standards of employment....like taking a sick day

you don't do that on temp jobs.

in Europe they get 5 weeks vacation, on a temp job, _you don't miss work_

you figure it out college kids.


you're making it possible for the muckrakers to have something to right about,

and oliver twist becomes a reality again, already is for marginalized citizens in some communities.

cheers to the American affluent, who care less for you than they do for their dogs, because they don't know you.

.


it's not rascist, it's preservationist...

Posted by: for you my illegal hiring friend of the moneymakers for your unca... | April 7, 2006 05:09 PM

Notice the timing as the illegal immigration debate shut down? The biased media cannot stand it shen the public forms an independent view. The media are quieting down to try and reformulate the issue, having learned we are not so stupid as supposed.

Looking towards May 1st, and the intended celebratory showdown declared by illegals and their adherents, i.e. not working, not spending, just protesting -- one can only imagine and dream. Make every day a beautiful May Day! Don't spend; don't earn; just leave and go home.

Posted by: | April 10, 2006 07:35 PM

samlam said, "Ask why people are offended by Mexican flags at rallies but don't care about Italians being flown all over a city during Columbus day."
i am not offended by the italian flags being flown on columbus day because the people waving the flags dont condsider englsh as a second language and italian as a first. the people waving the mexican flags consider spanish as their 1st language and english as their 2nd.

Posted by: someone who knows | April 11, 2006 06:54 PM

i am not opposed to immigration, just opposed to going to wendy's and having them screw up my order because the people there cant understand a word of english

Posted by: someone who knows | April 11, 2006 09:29 PM

Posted by Ricardo:

Again, to be pefectly honest, would you rather call a legal moving company that will set you back at least half a grand or hire couple of illegals who would gladly move you for $50?

Ricardo, are the couple illegals insured? What will you do if they drop your TV down your front steps?

There are several issues here that are interconnected. It is true that if we seriously enforced our own laws to go after the companies that hire illegals we could do more to stop illegal immigration with less expense than building a set of walls/barriers and manning them with the ncessary sentries. However, does that eliminate the need for better border security? I say no due to security concerns of terrorists infiltrating the US through our relatively open borders.

Any amnesty or guest worker program will only add incentive to potential illegal immigrants, unless we link those programs with a commitment to enforce our laws both at the border and policing our own businesses.

The other connected issue is NAFTA and its weak provisions for promoting equality of labor conditions on both sides of the border. I believe the NAFTA agreement is coming up for renewal soon and it needs to be given some teeth regarding labor - with real consequences if labor conditions don't improve (e.g. a sliding scale of tarrifs start being enforced if certain statistical benchmarks are not reached over time as measured by an independant organization). Through this method force the Mexican business owners into a tough choice between continued support of NAFTA with the acceptance of increased wages and benefits to their workers or without the increased wages and benefits that will cost them money in other ways. Make the alternative to NAFTA tariffs that will ensure an overall loss of money to the Mexican business owners. If NAFTA is accepted, the price for not meeting the labor condition requirements must approach the price of not having NAFTA at all. If we're smart about setting the tarrif levels we ought to be able to figure out how to affect the profit margins so that it is more profitable to Mexican businesses to improve worker wages and benefits than to not and have to deal with being priced out of the US market through implementation of tariffs.

If anyone is still looking at this topic, let me know what you think.

This seems the best way to influence labor conditions in Mexico. That would go a long way toward stemming the tide of desperate people that want to risk the border crossing.

Posted by: DK | April 14, 2006 01:02 AM


The American National Anthem


Oh Jose cant you see, we're tired of supporting thee.

When you snuck acrossed the border, it began an illegal plight.

Over broad stripes and bright stars, We'll continue to Fight.

Mexican Flags we did watch, that were so sadly streaming.

Our tempers did flare, with Mexican's everywhere.

Gave proof to the nite, we must send them back there.

O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave.

For the land of the U. S. Citizen and the home of the American's.


written and produced by U.S. Citizens
Made In America

Posted by: American | April 29, 2006 09:55 PM

Just like Zakaria, I too came to America from India legally. The following link of the video of a personal immigration story I told to a live audience in Greenwich Village, NYC, explains why I am sympathetic to illegal immigrants from Latin America. The subtexts of the story that uses my parents' maiden visit to America as a backdrop are : the growing alienation of a Republican leaning immigrant from that party and the shallow intellect of Lou Dobbs and his ilk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAIGxuFq0nk

Posted by: Tak | May 15, 2006 03:41 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.