Should all illegal immigrants currently in U.S. be given immediate legal status?

[unlawflcombatnt]

Poll question: Should all illegal immigrants currently in U.S. be given immediate legal status?

Poll result (282 votes)
Yes	(37 votes, 13%)	Vote
No	(245 votes, 87%)	Vote
Not Sure	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote

[goddess40]

1. To give them legal status is a union busting move

that's one of the reasons, if not the main one, that republicans are signing on.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. But if they're legal won't they be able to unionize as well?

It seems to me that the real union busting move is keeping them illegal, allowing employers to pay them slave wages.

[athebea]

59. You can't unionize your way out of a glut

Organizing 12 million isn't going to do a damn bit of good when 50 million more are pouring over the border.

Open borders means a never ending supply of cheap labor and you can't organize your way out of supply and demand.

[Hippo_Tron]

84. No, but you can give legal status to the ones that are already here

And impose a new rule that says that businesses will be fined $1 million for every illegal immigrant they hire and actually enforce this rule. No legitimate business in their right mind will hire an illegal immigrant and since they can't get jobs, people will stop coming to this country illegally.

[unlawflcombatnt]

87. Cheap Labor

"Open borders means a never ending supply of cheap labor and you can't organize your way out of supply and demand."

That's exactly what will happen. And that's why the Chamber of Commerce and Corporate America are in favor of this Amnesty legislation.

[Bridget Burke]

74. Yes.

Mexico has a strong history of labor activism.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

44. How so?

I thought they'd be more likely to form/join unions if they were legal rather than illegal. They're not unionized now, but they are employed. It seemed more likely to me that if they had the legal right they might choose to exercise it.

[goddess40]

49. even if they do join or form unions

it dilutes the work force and that leads to lower wages. I don't pretend to have the answers but it's still a win for the employers and a loss for the rightful citizens. It's also a smack in the face to those who came here through the legal channels - it seems to me that the dems are always bending over backward so let those that commit crimes go free - like the lack of impeachment when it's justified and wanting Gonzo to just go away instead of locking his ass up.

[unlawflcombatnt]

51. Exactly

"it dilutes the work force and that leads to lower wages"

That's exactly right.

Not only does it amnestize currently illegal immigrants, it amnestizes the employers who hired them. In other words, it's another pardon for big business and Corporate America for law-breaking activity.

[havocmom]

69. Those are the two biggies: lower the wages & get illegal EMPLOYERS off the hook

Those are the real reasons for the move. Once again, all for the fat cats while posturing to look like a gift to the underdogs.

[goddess40]

73. If Congress were serious they'd go after the employees

and leave their "slaves" alone.

[havocmom]

82. Go after the employers if serious about illegal immigration

Inspect the damn cargo coming into the ports instead of harassing people at airports about shampoo and water bottles if serious about fighting terrorism.

Yep, all is a sideshow of locking doors while the 'officials' let the horses outta the barn.

[unlawflcombatnt]

86. Did you mean "employers"?

I think you meant "employers", not "employees"

[slackmaster]

2. Not without getting their backgrounds checked, passing the US Citizenship Test

And at least acknowledging as debt any back taxes they haven't paid, at the very least.

[stillcool]

3. I think we should just move the border...

doesn't Mexico have oil?

[slackmaster]

38. Wrong border, stillcool47

Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!

[unlawflcombatnt]

4. Amnesty Provisions: the actual wording in the bill

To see the actual wording regarding the amnesty provisions, see my other post at
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Colobo]

5. If they can prove they have had a steady job for 5 years or more, yes.

[Booster]

6. If we don't enforce the laws we already have then this problem

will be like the pyramid scheme of years past. A few people win in the beginning, but in the end a whole lot of people lose. If we pick and choose the laws we want to enforce then we might as well register as a Republican, cause that's what they do.

[PsycheCC]

7. yep.

[Telly Savalas]

19. So we should throw potheads in jail?

[unlawflcombatnt]

23. Only if they hire illegal immigrants

[AzDar]

68. ........

[Double T]

8. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

When illegal aliens have more say in our government than this nation's own citizens, it's time to STOP the corrupt corporatist legislators and replace them. The insanity will be stopped!!!!

[Usrename]

32. Well, if they are citizens then that cannot happen, right?

I don't exactly see what is so special about us.

[unlawflcombatnt]

115. Corporate Influence

It's more like Corporations having more say than citizens. The citizens may vote, but the Corporations have all the lobbyists that push through legislation.

[AZBlue]

9. Not just no....HELL NO.

[acmavm]

10. You just typed, word for word, my exact response. The only

intelligent response.

[AZBlue]

11. ...

[acmavm]

13. Bottoms up!

[IndyJones]

30. Exactly! Hell, no!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Sure.

It's solve the "rule of law problem."

[unlawflcombatnt]

15. It won't solve the "Wage Suppression" Issue

Legalizing over 7 million currently illegal workers will suppress wages just that much more, and will encourage more workers to come in, and encourage newer illegal workers to forge documents, adding still more to our 231 million working age population (of whom only 146 million are employed.)

[Deja Q]

16. How do you come up with 85 million unemployed? (which is about 38%!)

Otherwise I agree with you.

But that's a huge number of unemployed; of which I'd be more inclined to believe in 15 years' time once "globaliaztion" really kicks in. Given how our economy needs us to spend spend spend, even the wealthy (who are helping these countries, who in turn have no right to bully us or threaten sanctions may I add) couldn't compensate for the imbalance.

If there is a new world order planned, it'll be interesting to find out the qualifiers. Is all this truly blind greed? 90% probability = yes, but still.

[unlawflcombatnt]

22. Good Question

These are actual numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which the government spins greatly. The government calculates unemployment numbers from the total number employed of 146 million, and the total participating labor force, which is roughly 152 million. The difference between the "participating" labor force and the total working age population is the so-called not-in-labor-force number.

The includes all of the people in the working age range, including the "not-in-labor-force" number, the officially unemployed number, and the total number of workers employed.

The number of workers who are not "participating" in the labor force (those termed "not-in-labor-force") can be easily manipulated to make unemployment numbers look better. And that's exactly what the Bush plutocracy has done.

The number of new entrants in to the "not-in-labor-force" category is twice that under the Clinton administrations last 6 years. Had the same number of workers "dropped out of the labor force" in Bush's 6 years as did in Clinton's last 6 years, there would be roughly 3.5 million more workers classified as unemployed under Bush, as these 3.5 million more workers would be included in the total unemployment number. (Increasing it from roughly 8 million to roughly 11.5 million, increasing the unemployment rate to over 7%.)

[mrdmk]

71. There is a reason for the "not-in-labor-force number"

One reason is are you going to continue working if you win the lotto? Some people do, but technically you just join the investor class.

Another reason for this classification of working people are the ones who retire, also people who can no longer work due to an accident or illness.

What has happened is some people have given up working, just cannot gather the energy to look for work. There are lots of these people.

There are three economic indicators that really need to be watched: 1) The Gross National Product, somewhere around 2% growth is acceptable, 2) Inflation, between 0% to 3% is nominal and 3) The unemployment rate (the natural employment rate) of 4% to 6%.

Our current growth rate is 1.3% (low), inflation is being reported at 3% (borderline high) and unemployment is being reported at 4.6% (O.K. number) until you, "take a look under the hood" as the massaging of the numbers. One note about these numbers is they are statistical, and how those numbers are attained which is in question here.

The other indicator is the Fed (remember those people) and how they are changing the money supply though interest rates (which is given all the time because it is easy to understand) and the biggie (I mean mammoth)is the buying and selling of bonds which is generally hidden and the reserve rate (the amount of money the banks must keep and not loan out based on the amount of money deposited by the customers i.e. savings).

A link for further reading
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MoneySupply.html

[unlawflcombatnt]

91. GDP Growth rate now only 0.6%

1st quarter GDP growth has now been reduced to only +0.6%, from the initially stated 1.3%. And without the "reverse" inflation always used when measuring Durable Goods, 1st quarter GDP growth would have only been +0.37%.

The main reason people drop out of the labor force and enter the "not-in-labor-force" category is because of lack of good jobs, not winning the lottery or retirement. There's no reason whatsoever why twice as many people have dropped out under Bush as did under Clinton. No reason, that is, besides a bad economy and poor job growth under Bush.

[snappyturtle]

14. No. Look, there are laws on the books that immigration has

vhosen to ignore for years. We live in an area where my husband lived for thirty years in home building(before we were married). He says that immigration used to be around all the time looking for illegals and when they found them they went back but now that is not the case. I am not against immigration per se, but it has to be of the legal sort like most immigrants to this nation have all used. This new spin of breaking up families is ridiculous.....those who are illegal made a choice, sad but true. It's time for Mexico and other countries who use Mexico as the pathway to the U.S. to help their people. Mexico has natural resources and wealthy people. I hate to say this but it isn't our problem except now it's become one. Corporate profits are growing astronomically; it's time for corporations and general businesses to pay people enough for them to live.

[unlawflcombatnt]

31. A good simple point

"Corporate profits are growing astronomically; it's time for corporations and general businesses to pay people enough for them to live."

With Corporate profits at record levels, there is simply no justification for trying to hold wages down, especially by illegally hiring illegal immigrants. There are more than enough Americans available to do every single job in this country. It's just a matter of whether business and Corporate America are willing to pay the market rate for labor, or whether they'll continue to break the law and hire illegally to increase their already exorbitant profits.

[tammywammy]

17. F*** No

[Brassballs]

18. WHY NOT?? It will help bust the unions and I am tired of paying

low taxes. I would love to pay more taxes to subsidize
all kinds of poor people from all over <sarcasm>

[Telly Savalas]

20. "Legal" workers are a fuck of a lot more likely to organize into unions

than ones who are afraid of being deported.

And for all the histrionics about the economic impact of undocumented workers, it has a miniscule effect compared to the financial black hole of the Iraq occupation. For what the Democrats' 4 month funding bill cost (which didn't involve a tax increase, by the way) we could have cut a check for $8,300 for each undocumented worker.

[Brassballs]

21. I guess you missed my SARCASM part?

In case you did, I do not want unions busted by
cheap imported labor, and I do not believe American
tax payers should have to carry water for illegals
from any country.

[Gold Metal Flake]

24. Pro-union, pro-organized labor. Hell no.

Fight illegal employment. The repressed workers of the world need our help to break the backs of oppressive regimes in their own countries. The oppressive regimes of the world should not be helping themselves (and our outlaw globalist, anti-worker corporatocracy) by pushing their victims out into ours.

[unlawflcombatnt]

26. Amen

And Thom Hartmann would agree completely with you.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. Absolutely, fight illegal employment.

Give the immigrants amnesty, make them legal and not subject to blackmail by threat of deportation or arrest, and reach out to them as fellow workers in solidarity against the corporate bosses.

Keeping them illegal, rejecting amnesty, only helps the bosses. It keeps them exploitable and vulnerable, just the way the bosses like it.

You are aware, aren't you, that unionization in most other countries far supasses our own? In other countries the unions can shut the nation down if they want - here, we can't evern swing an election. We need to draw on the labor traditions the immigrants are familiar with and reach out to them.

Solidarity.

[Gold Metal Flake]

47. Millions of low-paid workers to help destroy what few unions exist in the US.

Nice plan. And after that "amnesty", and of course it is also an amnesty of all of the employers that are currently breaking employment law by hiring illegal workers, there will be more illegals coming across all of our borders and in twenty years we will do it a third time, assuming there are any domestic jobs left.

Unions in other countries? How many other countries had their labor laws undercut by Taft-Hartly-like legislation? Where unions are strong in other countries you will find tighter immigration policies. You will find tighter rules on who can be hired and who can be fired. You will not find unbridled undocumented and illegal immigration. You will not find employers hiring illegal immigrants by the thousands. You will not find employers engaging in illegal activities to finance the importation of illegal immigrants across their borders. You will not find massive off-shoring of jobs. You are aware of that, aren't you?

There has been a war against labor in this country since the 1950s. I have had enough. You, I guess, have not. And so I have to assume that your tagline "solidarity" is your declaration of solidarity with the corporatocracy and the Reaganites.

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Why do you think unions exist?

You think people formed unions as a protectionist "I got mine" move?

Unions are the product of low-wage workers with no rights banding together with other low-wage workers with no rights to tell the bosses that they had to change the way they did things or be shut down. The only way immigrants can undercut labor is by being illegal - the bosses know they have scabs who, if they don't cooperate, they can have deported.

Put the onus on the bosses, not on the workers. Making them legal, and severely penalizing the bosses who hire the undocumented, and you have a workforce that can demand its rights. Keeping them illegal and you give the bosses just what they want - a pliable, exploitable low-wage workforce.

Taft-Hartley is an abomination, but it has nothing to do with immigration except in that it SUPPORTS the value of the illegal worker in the so-called right to work states. I suspect the undocumented workers, at least those who didn't come straight of the farms in Mexico and points south, are surprised by the lack of unions in this country. You have the answer in your own comment:

"You will find tighter rules on who can be hired and who can be fired. You will not find unbridled undocumented and illegal immigration. You will not find employers hiring illegal immigrants by the thousands. You will not find employers engaging in illegal activities to finance the importation of illegal immigrants across their borders. You will not find massive off-shoring of jobs."

That is a result of strong unions that have a say over what the bosses do - it has noting to do with immigration policy. You will not find unbridled undocumented and illegal immigration, because strong unions prevent the bosses from hiring undocumented workers. You will not find employers engaging in illegal activities to finance the importation of illegal immigrants, because their unions will shut them down if they do that.

The ONLY way to stop this is by going after the bosses - not by expelling the immigrants or by building walls or laying minefields. And if the government is not going to stop the bosses, it's up to the workers to do it...ALL the workers, in unified action, with strikes and support strikes and Taft-Hartley be damned. But as long as the immigrants have no legal status they can undercut any unified action, because they will do whatever they have to do to keep working and keep from being deported.

[NorthernSpy]

55. when a lot of workers are chasing the same jobs, wages will remain low...

Unions are the product of low-wage workers with no rights banding together with other low-wage workers with no rights to tell the bosses that they had to change the way they did things or be shut down. The only way immigrants can undercut labor is by being illegal - the bosses know they have scabs who, if they don't cooperate, they can have deported.

Put the onus on the bosses, not on the workers. Making them legal, and severely penalizing the bosses who hire the undocumented, and you have a workforce that can demand its rights. Keeping them illegal and you give the bosses just what they want - a pliable, exploitable low-wage workforce.

No. You end up with a workforce that demands its rights -- and immediately gets replaced by the next wave of cheap labor. And there'd be nothing to stop that.

Unless, of course, you were prepared to take serious action to exclude future border-crossers. But that brings us back to what I said earlier: if we're not willing to enforce our immigration laws right now -- if, after thirty years of wage stagnation and decline, we're still not willing to oppose business interests by calling a halt to the cheap labor influx right now -- then why should anyone believe that we'll ever be willing to do that? Please do tell me why, because I truly want to know.

Making them legal, and severely penalizing the bosses who hire the undocumented, and you have a workforce that can demand its rights.

As it happens, we could right now "severely penalize the bosses who hire the undocumented", thereby creating "a workforce that can demand its rights" -- if only in industries that aren't susceptible to offshoring. We can do that right now without granting any kind of amnesty to anybody, simply by enforcing our current laws. So why don't we?


Because the open borders apologists don't want to. And they will never want to. They like the influx, and they want it to continue -- whether legal or illegal, and regardless of the consequences to working class Americans. There's just no reason to believe that their promises of future enforcement are any more sincere now than they were 20 years ago.

[Gold Metal Flake]

65. Nicely said!

I wanna say ditto but that term now has a stigma.

[unlawflcombatnt]

118. Very Well Put

"Unless, of course, you were prepared to take serious action to exclude future border-crossers. But that brings us back to what I said earlier: if we're not willing to enforce our immigration laws right now -- if, after thirty years of wage stagnation and decline, we're still not willing to oppose business interests by calling a halt to the cheap labor influx right now -- then why should anyone believe that we'll ever be willing to do that? Please do tell me why, because I truly want to know

As it happens, we could right now "severely penalize the bosses who hire the undocumented", thereby creating "a workforce that can demand its rights"....We can do that right now without granting any kind of amnesty to anybody, simply by enforcing our current laws. So why don't we?

Because the open borders apologists don't want to. And they will never want to. They like the influx, and they want it to continue -- whether legal or illegal, and regardless of the consequences to working class Americans. There's just no reason to believe that their promises of future enforcement are any more sincere now than they were 20 years ago."

You couldn't be more right. The laws are on the books now. They're not complicated. It's illegal to hire a worker that's not legally in the country. How hard is that to enforce? Not very. And if something simple can't be enforced now, what makes anyone think a law that takes 350-700 pages to explain can be enforced any better?

[Gold Metal Flake]

64. Put the onus on the bosses.

You do not "put the onus on the bosses" by exempting them from prosecution for their crimes. And we already did the amnesty thing in the 1980s and here we are aain. Another amnesty, another build up until the next one. More inshoring of cheap labor. More offshoring of high-wage jobs. More errosion of the middle class. More wage slavery.

"You think people formed unions as a protectionist "I got mine" move?"
Labor unions not only gave workers leverage to improve their working conditions, they also tightened the labor market. They increased wages and shortened working days to give people time to converse, share ideas, plan, get healthy. People had time to think about elections and to elect representatives that would serve them, not just vote for the assholes the companies wanted under threat of termination. Organized labor worked to stop people from having to compete in the labor market with their children. Their young children. Yes, unions are protectionist.

Bringing in millions of workers illegally, dumping them into the labor pool, then saying "it's all fair" or "do-over" is a game by the corporatists. It serves their purposes, it does not serve the good of the American worker.

"The ONLY way to stop this is by going after the bosses - not by expelling the immigrants or by building walls or laying minefields. "

Thank you for bringing up this right-wing, corporatist meme. Wall-building. Minefields (rediculous). You do not organize in an labor environment swimming in a sea of illegal underground workers with more coming across the various ports and borders every day. The reason for the tide of illegals, the attractant, is the jobs.

So yes, go after illegal employment. Eliminate that first. Enforce and enhance current laws. End the jobs for illegals and the problem of this huge underclass will work itself out. Eliminate the job market for illegals and I predict, in a few years, you will see a surge in pro-labor movements in countries around the world led by those forced out of illegal jobs in the US. With a tighter labor market at home, you will see wages increasing. Giant corporate profits will decrease. Tax revenues will increase. Local economies will be restimulated and maybe people will remember to spend local this time.

A general amnesty serves the needs of the corporatists. They got it done before, they will do it again.

[unlawflcombatnt]

57. Exactly

"Nice plan. And after that "amnesty", and of course it is also an amnesty of all of the employers that are currently breaking employment law by hiring illegal workers, there will be more illegals coming across all of our borders and in twenty years we will do it a third time, assuming there are any domestic jobs left."

You're right on the money with this. The underlying motivation behind this bill is amnestying the illegal employers.

[NorthernSpy]

50. sorry, but those high-wage, highly unionized countries have TOUGH immigration laws...

... and they enforce them. That's HOW they're able to remain high-wage, highly unionized countries with robust social solidarity and low levels of inequality.

You are aware, aren't you, that unionization in most other countries far supasses our own? In other countries the unions can shut the nation down if they want - here, we can't evern swing an election. We need to draw on the labor traditions the immigrants are familiar with and reach out to them.

You're saying that if we legalize the current crop of illegals, they'll be able to make common cause with American workers, and then we can jointly stick it to the Man.

Why can't you understand that if we do that, then we'll quickly find our position undercut by a new influx of more illegals?

Look: as long as we refuse halt the flow of cheap labor into the country, there's no reason why wages should rise. And if we're not going to enforce our immigration laws now, after thirty years of stagnant or declining wages, then why do you think we ever will?

Thing is, we've been over this before. In 1986, Americans were told that if they'd accept amnesty for the then 1.2 million illegals, the federal government would diligently enforce immigration laws from then on. Now, 20 years later, we're being told that if only we'll just accept amnesty for 12 million illegals, then the government will start enforcing the law, for real this time.

Yeah, fool us once...

[unlawflcombatnt]

53. Amen

Those in the Senate pushing this bill know good and well that most provisions for enforcement will never take place. A 970-page bill, in full "legalese," is impossible to understand, much less comply with. And they all know it. The Senate's trying to pass something - anything - to amnesticize employers for past illegal hiring, and allow employers to continue tapping into cheap foreign labor markets.

[DemBones DemBones]

72. Exactly. And we have been helping people in other countries

for generations. A classic example of the principle that no good deed goes unpunished.

It's completely unfair to say "Oh, you're here and you work cheap so we'll give you amnesty and citizenship" while there are waiting lists of people wanting to lawfully immigrate to the US.

It's also ridiculous to claim we're fighting a war on terror when our borders and ports are not secure.

We should make the employers who have illegal aliens working for them pay their expenses to get back home and also fine them for hiring them.

Wages in the chicken processing plants are down to $8 an hour because the illegals are working cheap, putting citizens out of jobs. $8 an hour is not enough to do such messy and dangerous work or enough to live on. I remember when people were making $18 an hour, more than twenty years ago.

[jtrockville]

25. Frankly... I think questions should be about ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS

not illegal workers.

[Morgana LaFey]

28. There ya go. Molly Ivins said enforcing this part of immigration law

would put an END to illegal immigration, flat out end to it. And she was right: if the jobs were to dry up (demand), so would the illegals (supply).

Besides that I don't really know what I think about illegal immigration, except:

* We need to work harder to end the conditions in other countries where conditions force people to emigrate their own native lands.

* I don't think illegals take that many jobs "American won't do" or otherwise overload the system (with the possible exception of border areas), but I'm quite sure that undocumented illegal aliens are exploited, period. THey're exploited in a lot of ways, undoubtedly, but the one I'm most talking about here is wages.

* What fuels a lot of the anti-immigration (okay, anti-ILLEGAL-immigration) talk is racism, and the Republicans are thrilled to bring up these wedge issues at election time -- and beyond in this case since the globalization of OUR wages and living conditions into 3rd World Status is just what the corporatists ordered.

[unlawflcombatnt]

33. Illegal Employers

I'd much rather see prosecution aimed at the illegal employers. It would work much better. Employers have a lot more to lose, and they are a lot easier to track down and prosecute. And without "illegal employers," we wouldn't even have a problem with illegal immigration. It's the job magnet created by the illegal employers that brings illegal immigrants here in the 1st place.

[pampango]

37. The real problem I see with this is that employers should have a means

of determining a potential employee's "legality" without having to judge the validity of potentially forged documents. Not only would that make it clear when an employer is breaking the law, it would eliminate the defense that "The documents were very good forgeries. What could I do?"

Without clear cut determinations of legality, discrimination against all Hispanic applicants, including Hispanic Americans, would be quite likely. Of course, requiring a person to have a "legality ID" raises some "Big Brother" issues. Is there a way around this?

[unlawflcombatnt]

56. Tamper Proof Social Security Card

There is a bill pending that would mandate a so-called "tamper-proof" Social Security card, with an electronic strip, which could be instantly verified electronically. That's the best idea I've heard of to date. Whether it is do-able is another story.

[jtrockville]

90. If we can do it for bank accounts, why not ss cards? nt

[CTLawGuy]

27. We should not let corporations

and Bush make an end run around organized labor and the rights of the American and legal immigrant worker with this amnesty plan. They want to exploit cheap labor by luring desperate people to run over the border.

Do I think we should help those desperate people? absolutely. We must promote workers' rights, domestic entrepreneurship, and an overall strong economy in Mexico.


This is not about racism or hatred of immigrants. Notice I said we need to protect legal immigrants' rights as well. My grandfather was a proud LEGAL immigrant. It's not fair to legal immigrants, when they go through the legal channels, to condone people who do not.

[medlakeguy]

29. Absolutely, yes

[RebelOne]

34. Absolutely not! No!!

[pberq]

35. anyone who cares about American workers and the union movement

should be against "amnesty" - just another term for union-busting and wage suppression

[unlawflcombatnt]

61. Yes

At least the AFL-CIO has finally come out against certain aspects of the legislation, like the "guest worker" provision. It seems like they should oppose the bill in its entirety, since the net result will be to increase the labor force size, and suppress wages as a result.

[Bridget Burke]

75. The AFL-CIO opposes the Guest Worker Program because it's un-American.

Guest worker programs allow corporations to turn permanent jobs into temporary jobs staffed by foreign workers who often are unable to exercise their labor rights. Under any guest worker program, a corporation has the ability to import foreign workers who remain under an employer’s control, not only for their livelihood, but also for their legal immigration status. Workers are unlikely to complain about substandard working conditions because if they do they could lose their jobs and face deportation.

Guest worker programs also transform the fundamental nature of U.S. society. We are a nation
of citizens, not guests. Workers who are imported into the United States only for their labor, and only temporarily, have no incentive to invest in their communities, to buy homes or to engage in the long-term struggle for good jobs, health care or pensions. Guest worker programs essentially create a second class of citizens who remain marginalized with no voice in our democracy.

www.aflcio.org/issues/civilrights/immigration/upload/Im...

The PDF file was linked on this page. The AFL-CIO doesn't share your concerns. But--what do they know? They aren't doctors!

[unlawflcombatnt]

88. 2006 Legislation

This article applies to last year's bill, not this years. Though their current reasoning may be similar, there are differences in this year's bill. One of those is that ALL illegal immigrants will be given IMMEDIATE amnesty. Again, this was not part of last year's bill. The amnesty provisions were not immediate, nor were they as expansive.

With Union membership at an all-time low, it might be time for the AFL-CIO to revise it's policies, if they are now in favor of instant Amnesty.

Nice personal attack, by the way. Apparently you've run out of any logical arguments, since you need to resort to personal stuff.

[Bridget Burke]

95. So write to the AFL-CIO.

Explain why they are wrong.

(I'm sorry that you are ashamed of being a doctor. I know quite a few smart ones.)

[BlueJazz]

36. No..No..No..I have to many friends that came here, to this country,.....

..the lawful way.
Amnesty is a slap in the face to all of my friends.

Screw that...

In fact, we should let the folks who came here Legally decide about Amnesty,
That would kill that bullshit.

[El Fuego]

39. In your poll, does "legal status" mean amnesty and citizenship?

If so, I vote No. "Legal status" could also mean legal in the "guest worker" sense, and in reality many illegal immigrants will be reluctant to go on the radar. The guest worker scenario only benefits the employers who would then be able to legally employ slave labor.

[unlawflcombatnt]

111. "Legal"

I meant "legal" in that they can legally work and employers can legally hire them, regardless of whether they get citizenship or not.

[philosophie_en_rose]

40. Most undocumented immigrants should be given the opportunity to have legal status.

"All illegal immigrants" is very broad and would include the minority of undocumented immigrants that are actually illegal - drug runners, human traffickers, criminals, etc.

However, most people that are already here should have the opportunity to have legal status.

[Hippo_Tron]

43. I don't think we have much of a choice, deportation is completely impractical...

And having 10-12 million people working legally is better for unions than having 10-12 million people working illegally for slave wages.

I still say that we need to fine businesses $1 million for every illegal immigrant that they hire, and actually enforce those fines. That will largely solve the problem.

[candice]

46. ...most "illegals" are here for the jobs. As long as there is work, they stay...

...but the U.S. corporate state has a hand in what is happening to the non-ruling class in South America. Our subsidized corn is hurting the Mexican economy. Our tax dollars are being used to cause a disruption in traditional living patterns. No corn should be imported to Mexico for profit.

[candice]

45. and votes that are counted and universal health care and an SUV...

just kidding.

[Vinca]

48. IMMEDIATE legal status? Of course not.

A background check might be nice to be sure we're not allowing the bad guys in to stay. Your post makes the assumption that all illegals are decent, hard working, down-on-their-luck individuals who only need a break. While that may be true in the majority of cases, there are also gang members, drug dealers and assorted dangerous types slipping over the border, too.

[ecstatic]

52. They'll lose their jobs as soon as they do

the jobs they currently have will replace them with the next wave of undocumented workers.

[unlawflcombatnt]

58. Yes

That's exactly what will happen. The new wave will be willing to work for less than the "old" wave.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. Doing so would be a slap in the face to all those applying legally.

I have very severe qualms about any immigration legislation that would mean that illegal immigrants are better off that applicants to immigrate legally.

[Bridget Burke]

76. "slap in the face"---what a catchy phrase! How original!

Google results for "slap in the face" & immigrant. 231,000 hits!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22slap+in+the+fac...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

78. Lots of people agree with it, so it must be wrong?

I think that line of argument needs some work.

[Jim Warren]

80. Heh

"Lots of people agree with it, so it must be wrong?"

I wonder if that means 88% of the voters on this poll too.

[Sanctified]

62. They need to have background and health checks before they are given the green light.

One of my major concerns is if they are given the green light without being tested for TB.

[Jim Warren]

63. Nearly 90%

88% against, 12% for.

Hmmmm, seems pretty clearcut then and if it's like ending the war in Iraq our elected officials will vote this through and bush will sign.

[unlawflcombatnt]

66. LOL

Yeah, it seems like as soon as the politicians know for certain what voters want, they do the opposite.

I wonder how they're going to spin this one.

I'm still waiting for my $50/hour job from John McCain picking lettuce. (Maybe he had to "downsize," like the rest of the Corporate Plutocrats he represents.)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

67. temporary visas/work permits yes

all must be screened. US doesn't have resources to deal with it. Perhaps they could apply at the post office? Mexico can be billed for their healthcare or private insurance companies.

[unlawflcombatnt]

70. Screening

You've actually pointed out another of the many problems with the bill. We simply don't have the capacity to screen 12-20 million illegal immigrants. Which means if we did give them amnesty, they wouldn't all get screened, despite what the bill specifies.

[Bridget Burke]

77. OK. It's impossible to screen all those people....

But it's easy to deport them!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

79. not really easy to deport

do we have the resources for that?

[Bridget Burke]

85. Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

Some posters here seem to think that rounding up millions of people & shipping them across the Border would be easy & cheap. Not to mention humane.

[Robson]

94. If the carrot is eliminated they will go home to their families and friends

They are here for the money. President Fox and his successor wants them here for the money. All conservative Mexicans want them here so they don't vote. Bush wants them here so they don't vote in Mexico. That's how the cons won the Mexican election. Big business wants illegal labor here to pressure wages. It's all about more money and power to the conservative power base ...BIG BUSINESS and the RICH, in both USA and Mexico.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

83. instead of Bush using feds or contractors to screen anti war protestors or Quakers

perhaps the thousands of fed or contract workers who are hired by Bush to screen his protestors could be employed in screening illegal immigrants for criminal activity? This also relates to family members travelling with the 1st immigrant. Ofcourse they shouldn't stop screening for real terrorists.

The government will have to find ways of encouraging people to register.

I doubt we have the resources to round everybody up and send them home? Illegal immigrants come from countries like Poland and other parts of Europe and other faraway places.

Once the illegal immigrants have been screened and OK'd then they can be invited to apply for work permit or temp visa and after that adjust to green card, then eventually to citizenship. These could be renewed in the post office.

The employer of the 'screened' people would have to pay their health bill or the foreign gov would have to fund it while they are here or they could pay health insurance from their country or take one out here. States will have to be tough on this one or use their own funds.

[bamacrat]

81. They should have to earn it like all the legal immigrants.

[Anaxamander]

89. No way

If we're going to legalize everyone who comes here illegally, then what's the point of having a border? And in the long run, what's the point of having a country at all if we're not going to protect our own sovereignty?

[unlawflcombatnt]

96. Well Put

I can't add anything to that. Why have a border if anyone can cross it without consequence.

[Blueberry_raspberry]

100. Wow! I thought Libs would be pro amnesty!! not so by this poll

From talk radio I know rightwingers are heavily against this amnesty bill. From this poll and thread I see that most of DU is against this bill.

Then who is the constituent the Senate is working for???

[unlawflcombatnt]

110. The Rich Corporate Elite

Who are the major source of their campaign contributions.

[fujiyama]

92. That's an insult to every person that entered the country legally

No.

[Robson]

93. Amnesty Bill is only supported by elitist politicians, not Democrats

I say to our politicians of both parties. Enforce our existing immigration laws and protect our border. If employers won't hire illegal immigrants they will go home. It's outrageous that they will give immediate amnesty even to illegal immigrant gang members. The result will be a repeat of 1986 and more illegal immigrants crossing the border to undercut those given amnesty.

The current US government liabilities that now are at 60 TRILLION dollars will be further increased and any possibility of reducing this will be eliminated, after adding what will be an enormous load to our social services and downward pressure on middle class and lower wages. America will move from a strong middle class country to another Mexico like country of elite and surfs.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070529/1a_l...

The fact that George Bush has pushed this bill and fully supports it should raise a big question mark to every Democrat and every American. There is NOTHING that Bush favors that is beneficial to any middle class American. Furthermore I also wonder about the competence of Ted Kennedy as he and Bush got together for the "No Child Left Behind" bill.

[unlawflcombatnt]

97. Excellent Points

"The fact that George Bush has pushed this bill and fully supports it should raise a big question mark to every Democrat and every American. There is NOTHING that Bush favors that is beneficial to any middle class American. Furthermore I also wonder about the competence of Ted Kennedy as he and Bush got together for the "No Child Left Behind" bill. "

Bush's rabid support for this bill should concern everyone about the underlying motivation. Couple Bush's support with the unwavering support of the Chamber of Commerce, and it becomes apparent that this is just another Corporate welfare scam - designed to provide Corporate America with an unlimited supply of cheap labor, as well as continuing suppression of American wages.

[unlawflcombatnt]

98. H. Clinton: "We need MORE H1B visas"

Just heard this on Lou Dobbs, from Hillary Clinton, speaking to a group of Silicon Valley CEOs:
"We need to increase the number of H1B visas....".

Just unbelievable. Now it's completely clear where Clinton got her campaign contributions, and who's interests she really cares about--the interests of her big campaign contributors. Exclusively.

She's now the leader of the pack when it comes to being a cheap-labor advocate, and a proponent of suppressing American wages.

Along with her support of the Senate's Comprehensive Amnesty Bill, and likely support of increased outsourcing, I see no reason to vote for her. (and every reason to vote for her opponent.)

[Robson]

99. What candidate stands up for working Americans of moderate means?

We have elitist candidates on both the left and right (and Ds and Rs) who beg for votes but then forget where their bread is buttered and what is really important to America. Some politicians even believe that Wal-Mart is what makes America great. LOL

[unlawflcombatnt]

116. Kucinich, maybe Edwards

Tonight in the debate the only who even mentioned trade was Kucinich. On 2 separate occasions Kucinich said we should cancel both NAFTA and the WTO. He said we should return to our (previous) bilateral trade agreements.

I completely agree with him. Only Kucinich thought this issue was important enough to bring up in the debate. Hooray for Kucinich.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

101. Well, I guess I won't be supporting Hillary Clinton then

H1-Bs? As if American students and graduates didn't have it tough enough.

[unlawflcombatnt]

103. Me Neither

Clinton certainly won't be getting my vote. Her comment today was one of the worst comment I've actually heard a Democrat make so far. Clearly she's more concerned about her rich Corporate donors than she is about working Americans.

[Robson]

104. You have to wonder.....

.....which side is Ted Kennedy and Hillary on? They want to continue to add a glut of competition for US citizen workers. When the Democratic Party went pro-corporate with NAFTA is when many Democrats went independent. I believe that the immigration a issue is growing in importance to a level that will make or break candidates just as the Iraq War. The independent voter registration is growing by leaps and bounds.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

106. They have to stop forcefeeding us globalization

NAFTA, amnesty, H1-Bs, outsourcing...just enough already.

[unlawflcombatnt]

109. Yes

Enough is enough. And students going into High-Tech fields at present are guaranteed to have their wages suppressed by the proposed increases in guest workers and H1B visas. Which is exactly what some candidates, like Hillary Clinton, are proposing.

[lynne]

102. ABSOLUTELY NOT!

We need to first complete the process for the thousands upon thousands who have entered legally and are working with our system to gain legal status and become citizens. Those here illegally need to go to the back of the line.

[Robson]

105. No cheap labor would force business offer US Citizens higher wages and benefits and cut CEO pay.

Actually they need to go back to their own country, and then US business forced to hire Americans for those many jobs that can't be outsourced. Let them offer benefits and higher wages and if it causes profits to decline, then let them cut executive pay to normalized levels. If it causes higher prices so be it. I regularly will pay more for American made products, even though it is becoming more difficult thanks to US business and the business round table.

[unlawflcombatnt]

107. Exactly

And with Corporate profits at record levels, and markets "glutted with cash" (as market analysts are claiming), there is simply no reason why wages and compensation cannot be increased at present.

No reason, that is, except for the plentiful availability of cheap illegal immigrant labor.

[JoePhilly]

108. Yes. And a pony.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

113. LOL!

Welcome to DU!

[LBJDemocrat]

112. Two words: WAGE SUPPRESSION

This has nothing to do with culture. In fact, Latin American culture, disregarding the crime that plagues poor people of any origin, is generally wholesome and not that consumeristic.

The problem is wage suppression. I've said it before and I'll say it again: There's a reason the Wall Street Journal supports amnesty. If you think they give a flying f*** about diversity and the plight of the Mexican immigrant, I have a bridge connecting Brooklyn to Manhattan I'd like to sell you.

[unlawflcombatnt]

114. You Nailed It

Wage Suppression & Cheap Labor sums up the Corporate elite's motivation for pushing this bill.

It's all about "opportunity" -- opportunity for Corporate America to increase already exorbitant profits to even higher levels by reducing labor costs & wages further.

[unlawflcombatnt]

117. Other Immigration Poll Results

These are from Pollingpoint.com

[sadiesworld]

119. kick