quote:Foust, ????? What Economics class did you take? That might be true if our economy produced only one good, but luckily, that's not the case. Our workers, illegal or not, are not limited to buying only the staples they produce.
I didn't say they were.
What do you think would happen if every last worker - illegal or not - was paid at least minimum wage in the US? The price of goods would go up, would it not?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not very much, most are paid more than minimum wage currently. Also, your equation obviously fails because one worker does not produce the amount of goods one worker consumes, one worker can easily produce far more (especially if we're talking staples).
Or, to use fake, but if anything extremely conservative, numbers:
$20,000 a year in wages plus $100,000 a year in capital per worker (how about a moderately sophisticated farming setup?) allows each worker to produce enough food for 30 people per year. Each of those people (including each worker) pays $4000 or more a year for food and the farm at least breaks even.
posted
Yay, Uncle Orson! I'm so glad that he said this. It's so so true. I can't believe so many people here are so bitter against immigrants. It makes me really sad.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If by "here" you mean Hatrack, then I don't think that's a fair statement.
And many aren't so much bitter about the immigrants themselves, but rather the situatio as a whole, and the ever increasing negative effect it has on part of the country. That they focus on the negative more than the positive isn't really fair, but painting them as anti-immigrant because they don't like the people themselves isn't really fair.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw on the news that it costs over $300 to apply for a Visa and can take a decade to be approved.
We've had other threads about Mexicans living in garbage heap shanty towns being preyed on by serial killers.
If I make pennies a day and could walk north for a few days to make more money than I ever dreamed of, I'd probably be an illegal immigrant, too.
I think the real answer is to improve the Mexican economy. If Mexicans had decent jobs and adequate living conditions, they wouldn't need to come here. (I'm not sure who'd pick my tomatos, but that's another can of worms.) I find it arrogant to assume people love America so much that they would always come here. Even though it means they give up their homes, their language, their culture, their holidays, and their ability to be treated with respect in their communities.
If we want to look at countries that really have it bad, why don't we build some power plants in Haiti so families don't have to cut down every tree on the island to cook dinner? A major cause of death for Haitian children under five is infections from burns they get falling into the open fires. People die every year when the mudslides bury their homes becuase there's no vegetation left to hold the soil in place. Even more people die of disease. Diarrhia seems to be the worst. I've never known anyone who died of diarrhia. My sister needed an IV once for dehydration when she was sick, but that's about it.
Our neighbors of dying of causes so primitive, I can't conceive of them. I can't imagine drinking dirty water becasue there isn't any clean. I can't imagine being the size I was in high school again, there's no way I can imagine being underweight. I freak out if I don't get my mid-morning trail mix bar; there's no way I can see myself missing meals becuase I don't have food. I can always go get some Ramen or a 99 cent burger if funds are tight. I can't picture myself in a world where food doesn't exist in large amounts and I couldn't afford it if it did.
With so much hurt in the countries next to ours, it just seems a bit petty to worry about people being in America illegally. Maybe if they weren't dying, they wouldn't inconvenience us.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really does! And the idea that they are not "ours", that they are nothing to do with us, that we have our own problems and can't be bothered to worry about theirs, well, that idea is obsolete.
Not only is it morally indefensible, but it's logistically indefensible as well. Technology continues to improve making the world smaller and putting more and more power in the hands of smaller and smaller groups of people. If we are going to survive going forward, in a time when just a few or even one person can do significant damage (terrorism) to our systems and civilization, it will have to be in a world in which desperate poverty simply does not exist. We need to start working on this situation now, because we don't have too much more time.
Everyone's problems are our problems now, and from now on. Just as we would take steps to help, if a terrible situation existed in our neighborhood, we now must help to alleviate awful situations all over the world. Because, guys, the world is now our neighborhood. Mr. Rogers had it right! Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the outside looking in: I had friends when I was at school in Hawaii (I'm not American) who "went illegal" and escaped to the mainland US. I resent the fact that they eventually got permanent residence as a result of their breaking the law (some through an amnesty, others by having a fake marriage) while I, who would have loved to have stayed on in the US after graduating for a few years at least, to work, decided to be honest and respect the law, and go back home. I still do resent the fact that amnesties provide residency for people who deliberately flout the law, while law-abiding people, i.e. those of us who actually RESPECT the laws of the US, are unsuccessful prospective immigrants for whatever reason. In my view, the US either cracks down on illegals, (at least future ones), or opens its borders.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
AvidReader- It's even more than $300 for to be able to live permanently in this country. To become a U.S. permanent resident requireds about 7 different government forms and over $1000.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana- Perhaps you could outine what exactly the problem is from your perspective and the steps toward a solution.
Yes, I am not happy with the situation, but I don't like the implication that I must be bitter against immigrants. I know you didn't directly say that, but comments like:
quote:I can't believe so many people here are so bitter against immigrants.
(as well as other comments in the thread) detract from the debate may making proponents of immigration reform feel the need to repeatedly justify their good will towards immigrants to avoid charges or racism, xenophobia.
I can honestly say that I probably have more personal reasons for wanting things to come out more liberally for immigrants than most people here. However, I cannot support the status quo - it's not fair to anyone.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we are going to survive going forward, in a time when just a few or even one person can do significant damage (terrorism) to our systems and civilization, it will have to be in a world in which desperate poverty simply does not exist. We need to start working on this situation now, because we don't have too much more time.
I agree that we have to take the problems that go along with violence and increased technology seriously, and that this is a historically new issue, since the advent of the atom bomb. Hannah Arendt wrote a great essay, "On Violence," about thirty years ago detailing, with remarkable perspicuity, why you are correct.
I do think, Tatiana, that you underestimate our ability to survive in a morally and economically imbalanced place. I mean, we should have solved the problem of fossil fuels decades ago. And it took some 150 years to get women the vote, when the basic principle in enshrined right there in the Declaration of Independence.
As a nation, we go at these sorts of problems like the dutch girl plugging the hole in the dam with her finger, it's patchwork, it's piecemeal, it's sloppy, but we are built for it and we are good at it. We don't build new walls to fix problems, we plug holes. But again, we are good at it, we are like a genetically motified little dutch girl with a hundred hands.
If you want to argue for eliminating poverty from a survival standpoint, I think you underestimate our ability to plug these holes nearly indefinitely. If you want to argue for elimination poverty from a moral standpoint. I applaud you. I also think that the issue is not material poverty as much as it is degradation. Material poverty and moral degradation are distinct qualities, often entangled, but distinct enough to warrant serious seperate consideration.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, what does opening the borders mean to you? Bok gave me some perspective on this, as far as what the phrase means to many people, but I don't know what it means for you.
From your short answer lacking elaboration, I assume it means that you favor no form of immigration control at all, effective immediately. Whoever wants to come, can come and instantly become full fledged citizens upon setting foot here.
Is that correct?
If anyone has some links to some papers that study things from both sides of the issue (immigration controls vs. open borders), particularly from an economics point of view, I'd be very interested in reading them.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I lean toward open borders, but I'm not convinced that's actually practicable. It just sounds like a nice ideal to me. So another good question for Tatiana would be if she favors that as an ideal, or as something to immediately push for.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Irami, I do think we should eliminate extreme poverty on moral grounds. I'm trying to appeal the the hard-nosed realists among us by pulling in the survival angle. I believe equally strongly that we have to do it to survive.
Bao, by opening the borders, I mean that governments don't have the natural right to dictate where people can live, any more than they have a natural right to tell them whom they should marry or what profession to follow or what books to read. Imagine if you had to apply to Georgia for a visa and to Alabama for an exit visa if you wanted to move from Birmingham to Atlanta. Imagine if this process took 5 years and was likely to be denied. That would probably make you pretty annoyed. I believe the same should be true of national governments. We're just used to it, so we don't see how wrong it is.
Icarus, I think huge changes in the law are generally most wisely implemented gradually. This gives people and systems time to adjust, and in the event that it turns out to have been a really bad idea, a chance to change our minds.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's take another analogy for the same situation. Say you woke up tomorrow morning and found a family camped out in your living room. When you ask what they're doing there, they reply that you have nicer furniture than they have at their house, a bigger TV, better food in the fridge, and a computer with a broadband connection. So, since this family wanted a better life for themselves, they thought they'd move into your house.
If you called the police, would the officer be cold and heartless to tell them to go back to their own house? Or would the cop's only morally justifiable answer be that you don't have the right to tell these people where they can live, and you can't deny their right to pursue your quality of lifestyle, even if they have to come to your house to do it?
What's wrong with the idea of private property? What's wrong with just saying that America belongs to us, and we can decide, on a case-by-case basis, who we want here and who we don't? Why do we have to go into all these discussions about our moral duty to every other human in the world and all the children they decide to have if the bottom line is that we'd feel better if they weren't sleeping on our couch?
There's a lot of talk fro the open-borders advocates about how the Europeans didn't have any right to be here in the first place because the Native Americans didn't want them here. There's a feeling that if they had won their battles and booted us all off their continent and back to Europe, they would have been in the right. If even the open-borders people are admitting that the Native Americans had the right to defend their lands from us, why are they denying us the right to defend our lands from others that we don't want here now? Or are they saying that the Native Americans should have just moved into their reservations and let us take over without a fight?
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's take another analogy for the same situation. Say you woke up tomorrow morning and found a family camped out in your living room. When you ask what they're doing there, they reply that you have nicer furniture than they have at their house, a bigger TV, better food in the fridge, and a computer with a broadband connection. So, since this family wanted a better life for themselves, they thought they'd move into your house.
Mexicans aren't crossing the border to mooch off our welfare system.
They aren't coming over here to watch cable television.
They aren't coming to leer at soccer moms and their HOT mini-vans.
Most of them are here to get work at wages they can't get in Mexico.
quote:What's wrong with just saying that America belongs to us, and we can decide, on a case-by-case basis, who we want here and who we don't? Why do we have to go into all these discussions about our moral duty to every other human in the world and all the children they decide to have if the bottom line is that we'd feel better if they weren't sleeping on our couch?
For me, this about sums it up:
quote: Matthew 25
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee asick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
That's the ideological basis for my belief in a more open immigration policy, and for resisting the idea of immigrant==moocher.
Logically speaking, we've got jobs no one wants to do; Immigrants are willing to do them.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Mexicans aren't crossing the border to mooch off our welfare system.
They aren't coming over here to watch cable television.
They aren't coming to leer at soccer moms and their HOT mini-vans.
Most of them are here to get work at wages they can't get in Mexico.
Even if that's true, so what? It doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: For me, this about sums it up:
quote: Matthew 25
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee asick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
That's the ideological basis for my belief in a more open immigration policy, and for resisting the idea of immigrant==moocher.
And what if I'm not a Christian? What if some Bible passage doesn't convince me that I have an obligation to make sure everyone in the world enjoys my quality of life? What if I don't believe that's an achievable or practical goal, let alone a desirable one? What then?
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if that's true, so what? It doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
Well, I didn't want to come out and say, "Your analogy sucks." But since you asked...
quote:what if I'm not a Christian? What if some Bible passage doesn't convince me that I have an obligation to make sure everyone in the world enjoys my quality of life? What if I don't believe that's an achievable or practical goal, let alone a desirable one? What then?
You'll notice that I started the expression of my opinion with the words "For me..."
There are other reasons to support the loosening of immigration laws in this country. I even expressed one. If you look, I'm sure you can find it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what if I'm not a Christian? What if some Bible passage doesn't convince me that I have an obligation to make sure everyone in the world enjoys my quality of life? What if I don't believe that's an achievable or practical goal, let alone a desirable one? What then?
People in this country vote based on their values. If someone has deeply held beliefs, those values will inform their vote.
If you're not convinced by those values then obviously Scott's argument based on them won't convince you.
So?
quote:What's wrong with just saying that America belongs to us, and we can decide, on a case-by-case basis, who we want here and who we don't? Why do we have to go into all these discussions about our moral duty to every other human in the world and all the children they decide to have if the bottom line is that we'd feel better if they weren't sleeping on our couch?
What's wrong with it is that it's inaccurate. "Us" and "we" include lots of people who don't want to decide on a case-by-case basis as well as people who don't think letting someone into America is akin to letting them sleep on our couch.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what bothers me most about the whole OSC article is the analogy at the beginning. It is a call for open borders effective immediately, because any other immigration policy is not defensible under the moral argument that he makes.
Furthermore, I appreciate what Irami said about the differences between a moral and practical standpoint. Were the borders completely open, I would think that there would be a saturation point for unskilled workers. The wages for the unskilled workers depress almost to the point they are in Mexico? Even with minimum wage laws, according to OSC's moral scenario, employers would be doing the moral thing by helping people from other countries work here for $3 an hour. Or $2 an hour, and the government would be doing the moral thing by ignoring this. After all, the immigrants of 10 years ago who make $5 an hour are less needy than the ones in the mountains of Peru living of $1 a day. At what point then, does America become less able to help people than Germany, France, Canada, Brazil, etc? This is not a slippery slope, this is what is demanded by the boy/sister/driving moral framework.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: What's wrong with it is that it's inaccurate. "Us" and "we" include lots of people who don't want to decide on a case-by-case basis as well as people who don't think letting someone into America is akin to letting them sleep on our couch.
Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who do feel that way. If it were not the case, where did our current immigration policies, or the debates we're having here, come from? And if someone feels that way and chooses to vote based upon those feelings, what's wrong with it?
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on what you mean by "wrong with it?"
What's wrong with the general idea of voting based on your principles? Nothing.
However, that doesn't mean that someone isn't free to comment on what they consider to be misguided principles. And some people have made it quite clear that they consider the principle you are basing this on to be selfish and immoral.
quote:Go ahead and say it. But I expect you to be able to back it up instead of digressing to non sequiturs.
He didn't digress into non-sequitors. In fact, his response was a pointed refutation of your analogy by attacking one specific element of it.
Your analogy: squatters:your house::immigrants:our country.
Scott pointed out several ways in which squatters are different from immigrants, specifically related to their willingness earn their pay as opposed to taking something they didn't earn.
Or, in other words, your analogy sucks.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One problem with your analogy: most illegal immigrants pay for their shelter and basic needs. The squatters in your example don't.
As a result your private property non-sequitor is moot. Someone is renting to these illegal immigrants; renting their own private propety. Still others are hiring them to work on their private property, for their private businesses.
quote:What's wrong with the idea of private property? What's wrong with just saying that America belongs to us,
Do you see the contradiction in this sentence? Private property belongs to all of is? Someone should ring up the Socialists and hand them this rationale!
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Bao, by opening the borders, I mean that governments don't have the natural right to dictate where people can live, any more than they have a natural right to tell them whom they should marry or what profession to follow or what books to read. Imagine if you had to apply to Georgia for a visa and to Alabama for an exit visa if you wanted to move from Birmingham to Atlanta. Imagine if this process took 5 years and was likely to be denied. That would probably make you pretty annoyed. I believe the same should be true of national governments. We're just used to it, so we don't see how wrong it is.
Ok, so that's pretty much what Bok said a page ago-eventually move to open borders, and support legislation that moves that direction.
But what about the here and now-today, what should our immigration policy be?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Scott pointed out several ways in which squatters are different from immigrants, specifically related to their willingness earn their pay as opposed to taking something they didn't earn.
Or, in other words, your analogy sucks.
So are you saying that if the people camping in my living room started leaving me rent checks and cleaning up, I wouldn't have any moral right to kick them out? What if they started paying my entire mortgage, utilities, car payments, cleaning up after me and themselves, and making it undeniably economically advantageous for me to have them there (something that illegal immigrants aren't doing)? Does this remove my right to say that I prefer to live alone?
quote: Do you see the contradiction in this sentence? Private property belongs to all of is? Someone should ring up the Socialists and hand them this rationale!
There is such thing as private property for a select community. If I buy a TV and allow my children to watch it, does that mean everyone in the world has free access to it? If I move into a condo that provides an exercise room and a pool to its members, do they have the right to deny access to street-dwelling vagrants who want to use the pool to take a bath? Since when does the fact that more than one person has the right to something mean that it's up for grabs to everyone in the world?
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
[EDIT: This is directed to BQT] For me, I would provide guest worker registration centers for easier registrtion. I would ideally have no limit as to how many or who could register for the year-long visas (though that isn't a make-it-or-break-it condition; if we need to cap them, we need to figure out a reasonable cap, or else we'll still get illegals coming in undocumented). I would expect documenting fingerprints (and possibly further identification tests, maybe DNA?), issuing an id card, and even an orientation to educate the applicants on what they have for rights (and also what they don't have). This would include avenues for citizenship (if we decide to provide any). I would also be open to providing more harsh penalties (and enforcement!) for anyone who still enters/hires an illegal immigrant.
I'd also ideally drop the minimum wage by a fair bit, since if they are forced to work at our minimum wage, no one will hire the registered workers, and we are back to the current system. If that is too politically untenable, I'd be willing to set a special minimum wage just for the workers that is lower than the normal minimum. I'd also waive the social security witholding, though keep the medicare/medicaid witholding. I'm not sure what to do with the income tax stuff, and that will be particularly thorny for states with income tax, since I'm not comfortable (and it probably isn't constitutional) to force the states to NOT collect on these registered workers.
The thing is, I think a lot of the people pushing for open borders find catering to the "supply-side", as it were, either a tad detestable, or are afraid to come out in favor of it for fear of looking like a greedy capitalist pig. In reality though, these employers have already shown a propensity to violate the law to get cheap labor, so whatever is done to create more open borders needs to make sure these people don't just end up going for illegals because the cost is too much to bear. I know, it's placating criminals, but the alternative is the current situation.
This might seem like a lot, but at it's minimum it would be a guest worker program that is capped at a max every year, and requires registering with security checks/id data collected, as well as an id card issued. Employers are given a lower wage to pay these workers, legally, as well as not having to withold as much in taxes.
Maybe that's too much change, but when you are taking the first step, it takes a bit more to get started; afterwards we can tweak the system.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Scott pointed out several ways in which squatters are different from immigrants, specifically related to their willingness earn their pay as opposed to taking something they didn't earn.
Or, in other words, your analogy sucks.
So are you saying that if the people camping in my living room started leaving me rent checks and cleaning up, I wouldn't have any moral right to kick them out? What if they started paying my entire mortgage, utilities, car payments, cleaning up after me and themselves, and making it undeniably economically advantageous for me to have them there (something that illegal immigrants aren't doing)? Does this remove my right to say that I prefer to live alone?
Except that they aren't sending you rent checks, they are going to your neighbor, who is willing to take them in (for a price), and in return is mowing your neighbor's lawn for half the price your son/daughter is willing to do it for.
quote: Do you see the contradiction in this sentence? Private property belongs to all of is? Someone should ring up the Socialists and hand them this rationale!
quote:There is such thing as private property for a select community. If I buy a TV and allow my children to watch it, does that mean everyone in the world has free access to it? If I move into a condo that provides an exercise room and a pool to its members, do they have the right to deny access to street-dwelling vagrants who want to use the pool to take a bath? Since when does the fact that more than one person has the right to something mean that it's up for grabs to everyone in the world?
About the only thing that illegal immigrants use that they don't often pay for are roads and medical care. This is problematic, but really, until you go after the root cause (did you know that in the last several years, we've been more lax at investigating companies to see if they do employ illegal immigrants?) these horrible illegals will still come.
But those who hire like the current way the debate is set up; it leaves them in relative anonymity, and almost all the invective is directed at the illegals they hire.
quote:So are you saying that if the people camping in my living room started leaving me rent checks and cleaning up, I wouldn't have any moral right to kick them out? What if they started paying my entire mortgage, utilities, car payments, cleaning up after me and themselves, and making it undeniably economically advantageous for me to have them there (something that illegal immigrants aren't doing)? Does this remove my right to say that I prefer to live alone?
No, I haven't said any such thing. Why would you suppose I had?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Bok, that was awesome, I appreciate you taking the time to outline some of your thoughts.
I would also be interested in expanding on ideas for a path to citizenship...so it's not just a one year, then see you later proposition for those people that are interested in becoming part of America by staying. On the other hand, it might be more beneficial to more people if it was just limited to one year and then more people could come in and make some cash.
What about the border security issue, what place do you think it has? Your method seems to be more about making things regulated at the source, which I agree will ultimately do more to solve the problem more than putting a bunch of the NG on the border ever could.
Any finally, what to do about the 12 million+ people here without documentation now? Put them on the guest worker program then send them home? I don't like that option much since many of them have children that are US citizens and have built lives here. Let them work on being citizens? Doesn't seem as fair to those that didn't already come here.
Thanks for engaging in this with me Bok- I've really been wanting a Hatrack discussion on immigration that moves beyond the 'they're a bunch of squatters' and 'we should open the borders to help everyone in the world' idealogical arguments and deals with realistic policy ideas.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, no problem. I'm likewise glad someone is willing listen, rather than debate every little nit in my suggestion
One thing I forgot to add was that the Guest Worker visas would be renewable, if there was no cap. If there was a cap, then there would have to be a different system in place...
As for the existing folks here, my magnanimous side says to give them US citizenship if the can prove they have a child who is a citizen. But then you end up with a bunch of citizens who are now unemployable since they have to follow US laws, and are in "The System".
I personally don't see the use in beefing up security too much more. If the guest worker program works (mine or someone else's), then that lowers the need for security, since presumably fewer people are going to try and sneak in. As I mentioned earlier, I would be open for harsher punishments for those caught doing so, or for those still hiring illegals, since we would now have a more accessible system to work in our country. That said, if it is a worry, I'm not against more human presence on the borders, but new fencing and the like leave me cold.
BTW, do you have any ideas? As you can see, even my currently not-fleshed-out idea has some potential problems; have you thought of a novel approach yourself?
posted
I think OSC's essay makes a lot of sense, but I wish he had said something about what punishment he thinks illegal Mexican immigrants deserve. Surely someone who broke the law to get into this country deserves some punishment, no matter how well they've behaved in the U.S., if only to deter others from sneaking into the country. After all, because of terrorism we can't afford not to monitor who's entering and leaving our country. (But I am convinced from OSC's essay that shipping every illegal immigrant back to his or her own country is unfair to the good ones.)
I'm still not convinced that translating public documents into Spanish is a good idea. We can't translate the documents into every language spoken by immigrants, and Spanish-speaking immigrants don't deserve special treatment just for being the biggest group. If they get used to being able to survive in the U.S. speaking only Spanish, there's a good chance they'll see themselves as more closely allied to their fellow Spanish speakers than to other Americans and as a result demand more special rights for their group in the future, even (though this is probably far in the future) the right to form their own country in areas where they're the majority.
On another note, I've always thought that granting U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S. is a bad idea. Do we really want to encourage Mexican women to sneak into the U.S. just long enough to have their kids here? Why can't the law just be that anyone born to at least one parent who is a citizen is automatically a citizen?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? One of Congress' constitutional powers is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For border security right now, I would stop building these silly walls. I would focus on developing electronic surveilance, unmanned drones, and similar technologies in combination with training the Border Patrol to be able to quickly respond to electronic flags. A lot of the focus seems to be on increasing the number of agents, I'd rather see use of better technologies. The idea would be that no one would attempt to cross because of the near certainty of getting caught- whether it's terrorists or illegal immigrants. (Aside: I read an article in the paper today about the Border Patrol search and rescue....they save over 2,000 people a year from most likely dying in the attempt to cross). The funds for this would come from the U.S. DoD budget.
Require people currently here without documentation to submit paperwork to apply for permanent residence or Employment Authorization Documents within a certain amount of time, say one year. Require a fine to be paid, with options to spread it over time. Use this additional funding to increase the size and employees of the USCIS. The wait time for application processing and to just have a question answered is nothing short of ridiculous.
Create a a new division of the USCIS to oversee some sort of guest worker program. They would be required to get quotas for immigration from the Fed, who would use it as another tool to help regulate the economy. The duration of the guest worker stay would be short, 1-2 years. Try to balance those coming from a variety of countries, considering diversity, economic need, amount of time waiting, etc. There's plently of needy countries out there, like many in Africa, who we sometimes don't see because they weren't born geographically convenient.
Massively increase the quota for the number of people wishing to immigrate and stay here (become permanent residents and eventually citizens). Have a plan with some sort of balance for people moving here permanently vs. guest workers.
Institute a national database correlating name, fingerprints, SS or alien #, that employers will be required to run every employee they hire through. With the current state of IT, I can't believe that this is not possible as some have said. Heavily fine those, both employees and employers that are not working legally (with a majority of the fine being on the employer). Lower the minimum wage slightly so it is not economically advantageous to hire a guest worker over a citizen/permanent resident- it's only advantageous to hire one if there is no one else. The difference between their minimum wage and US citizens is will be used to fund the infrastructure of the guest worker program- so the employer pays the same regardless of who is employed.
Any children of non-U.S citizens & permanent residents born in this country are not U.S. citizens by default, as has been tradition. Create a seperate Medicare type program for guest workers, funded through their checks. Require no SS contributions. Keep tax brackets for them the same level as citizens, not any higher. Provide a path for citizenship for guest workers, but realize that not everyone who is a guest worker can immediately become a citizen- doing so would almost immediately shut down the guest worker program and immigration outside the guest worker system.
Honestly I could be happy with just about any fair, comprehensive policy even if I disagree with a few specific points. The problem is, like everything else in the country, it's become so politicized that getting such a policy out of Congress seems pretty much impossible.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
On another note, I've always thought that granting U.S. citizenship to everyone born in the U.S. is a bad idea. Do we really want to encourage Mexican women to sneak into the U.S. just long enough to have their kids here? Why can't the law just be that anyone born to at least one parent who is a citizen is automatically a citizen?
The right of citizenship, for most of us, was granted to us because we were born here. What makes us more deserving than the kid?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main problem I see with your proposal, IMO, is how willing you/me/we are to stomach reports of illegal immigrants getting shot and killed when they try to come in, due to the increase in security. Your system, if the minimum wage does not get lowered a fair amount will not incentivize employers to hire legally, if they are already doing so.
You are relying on constant and unceasing vigilance and dedication to both border security as well as corporate audits for illegal employees. I think that would become untenable and too expensive for anyone to stomach.
Some of the other things you mention offend me at a more idealistic level (people born here no longer citizens, major investments in border security under the oversight of the DoD, etc), but aren't flaws in your proposal, per se. It is very interesting in seeing a plan coming from a different direction though.
In the end, your proposal seems a bit too xenophobic for my inclinations. I am suspicious of any plans that would shrink the tent, rather than enlarge it. I realize you propose upping quotas, but the problem here is not about equitable immigration; my assumption is that most of the people coming in illegally would only want to be citizens insofar as it would provide a more safety for them, in reality, they just want the jobs. I think that isn't a bad thing, because some will stay, and the rest will bring back general goodwill to their home, if nothing else.
quote:Why? One of Congress' constitutional powers is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
quote:U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That's why. In case you're worried about "subject to the jurisdiction":
quote:The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. 7 Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, 8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.
Congressional representatives wanting to make illegal entry a felony are admitting that illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the end, your proposal seems a bit too xenophobic for my inclinations. I am suspicious of any plans that would shrink the tent, rather than enlarge it.
Could you expand on this a bit please, especially what you consider xenophobic?
In response to your specific points, I fail to see how more people will be shot under my plan than under the current plan. Increased security does not mean lethal force. Additionally, I don't think I'm asking unceasing vigilence to the extent that it would be a burdon. I'm suggesting supplimenting what we have with technology, and letting it pick up the slack. Furthermore, I think the idea of corporate audits will be a deterant...much the way IRS uses the audit to deter tax fraud.
There might need to be a temporary transition period of lower minimum wages to ease into compliance, but if the policy is implemented long term I see problems of resentment among American unskilled workers as they begin to lose out on jobs to guest workers. However, if the quotas are closely monitored and successfully managed, then it may be possible to keep the wage lower permanently.
I have to disagree about people coming here just for jobs. Lots of people honestly like it here. Lack of political corruption, opportunity, education, more liberty, more women's rights, and less crime are just a few of the non-job related things that motivate people to want to stay in Amercia, but that we often take for granted.
I know you're pretty dead-set against anything to do with borders Bok, but for the world here and now, I'm hard pressed to think of some workable plans that completely neglect them at least short-term. I think economic pressure here not to hire illegal immigrants would be most effective if less people were coming across undocumented.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition, and I don't think there's anything stopping Congress from asserting jurisdiction over people naturalized in that way anyways.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Except that they aren't sending you rent checks, they are going to your neighbor, who is willing to take them in (for a price), and in return is mowing your neighbor's lawn for half the price your son/daughter is willing to do it for.
They're going to Canada? Then what's the problem?
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Except that they aren't sending you rent checks, they are going to your neighbor, who is willing to take them in (for a price), and in return is mowing your neighbor's lawn for half the price your son/daughter is willing to do it for.
They're going to Canada? Then what's the problem?
Are you really not clear on the difference? We don't own America. We didn't buy it. It doesn't belong to us. It isn't property.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
