Illegal immigration. Cause: NAFTA. Solution:

[rman]

build 700 mile fence along the 2000 mile US-Mexican border at a cost of $3 million per mile.


So the border stays open, and some contractor will make out like a bandit.

Which problem does it solve exactly?

WHO BENEFITS?


======

How NAFTA is the (main) cause of illegal immigration:

Post Gazette, Pittsburgh
Forum: Illegal immigration -- the missing link
Revise NAFTA, says LEO W. GERARD, to stop giving millions of Mexicans the incentive to cross the border
Sunday, April 23, 2006
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06113/684154-109.stm

Leo W. Gerard is international president of the United Steelworkers.

As the national debate on immigration rages on, it becomes apparent that our political leaders are increasingly hamstrung by their penchant for focusing on the symptoms of the problem rather than its underlying causes.

So-called "conservatives" in the House of Representatives want to wall off our southern border, deport anybody without papers and turn nuns into felons if they so much as provide a meal to an undocumented immigrant.

"Compassionate" conservatives in the Senate and the White House advocate a kinder, gentler transformation -- granting second-class, "guest worker" status to the undocumented work force.

Some liberals, meanwhile, profess allegiance to a romanticized view of circumstances that fails to address the strain on domestic social programs, labor markets and the rule of law being created by the flood tide of illegal immigration.

<snip>

Few in Congress or in the major media, however, have examined why some 15 million Mexican immigrants have crossed the border in the past two decades, why experts expect another 15 million over the next 20 years, or why 80 to 85 percent of that migration has been illegal in recent years.

<more>

[sandnsea]

1. And whatever happens, just ignore plain old Democrats

Who added increased enforcement of illegal employers and full citizenship so we wouln't make a second-class group of workers; and who also want to change the trade laws so that environmental, labor and human rights regulations are added and enforced when they are.

No, let's not talk about the people who have the answers. If it aint' screamin' and rantin', nobody's interested.

[Skidmore]

3. Without enforcement of the laws, there is no point to any legislation.

It becomes words on paper only. We need both--trade laws that make sense for both the US and other nations in terms of regulations for the environment, labor, and human rights as well as effective immigration laws that are all enforced.

We need to be out there screaming too for fair trade and enforcement of our current immigration laws.

[sandnsea]

6. Which is why they changed it

And put enforcement in the hands of the Dept of Labor. And yes we do need to be screaming for fair trade and enforcement against illegal employers, instead of scapegoating the workers who are caught up in capitalist games they've got no control over.

[rman]

4. How many Dem reps are there

who "want to change the trade laws so that environmental, labor and human rights regulations are added and enforced"?

I can think of no more then a few, so i guess anyone else who is essentially proposing the same thing would be welcome.

Are you saying i am "screaming and ranting"? If so, is it because i put two words in caps?

[sandnsea]

5. I was referring to the author

And most every Dem I know of would like to improve our trade agreements. It's funny, during the 2004 primary the Dem who fought hardest for better trade agreements - and against welfare reform, Dick Gephardt, was beat up almost as much as Lieberman. He was the proven populist people said they wanted. Except people don't really know what they want, in the end. Except right now they want to scream and holler and rant and rave.

[Skidmore]

7. Gephardt was beat up in 04, not because of his stance on trade issues,

but because of the way he cavalierly handed war powers to * in a bid to get Iraq out of the way before the elections. He was handed a smackdown that was rightly deserved for treating such an extremely serious issues as a political ploy.

[sandnsea]

9. He was beat up for everything

Just like people do now, no idea who stands for what, just worship their heroes and beat up the rest. This immigration thing is classic, most people don't even know that there are 2 different bills, let alone what's in them. They just lash out and most of the time it's to advance their own agenda, just like the labor leader who wrote that article did.

[Skidmore]

10. Gep was hammered at our local caucus here in Iowa partially because

of the way the union boys at the caucus acted a bit like bully boys. People were really turned off by their in-your-face crap and that created a backlash in our caucus.

[sandnsea]

13. Well, maybe that proves my point

Everybody seems to be in bash mode these days. To hell with the facts, just pick and choose and go on a rant. That's what seems to pass for political discourse.

[Skidmore]

16. I'm telling you about what people were saying to me at the caucus

in our community at that time, and I'm bashing? I was there. This was what happened. No bash, just fact.

[sandnsea]

19. Did I say you were bashing??

Show me where I said you were bashing. You pointed to bullies at the caucus, and I said that sort of proves my point - bashing instead of political discourse. The union guys, not you. Just like, coincidentally, the union guy in the OP.

[Skidmore]

21. Thanks for clarifying. Your initial statement was not

quite as clear.

[rman]

12. But you agree with the author that NAFTA should be revised,

because it is a major cause of illegal immigration?

[sandnsea]

15. You bet

I've supported that for years. I also think it needs to be revised because people around the globe aren't being lifted out of poverty and its contributing to anti-Americanism.

I just don't think he needed to act as if the people who AGREE with him don't exist, and smear the rest who agree with him, in order to make his point.

[rman]

18. Which Dems have proposed a bill that proposes to revise NAFTA?

[sandnsea]

22. Oh, it is late for me

I should be asleep. I'm not going to go dig up every trade bill that's been introduced in the last 5 years. But there isn't a Democrat out there that hasn't supported changing our trade agreements whenever they've come up for debate.

[rman]

23. I mean specifically in the context of illegal immigration;

Is either bill proposing to revise NAFTA?

[sandnsea]

25. See #24 n/t

[rman]

8. I've heard only a very few Dems talk about revising NAFTA

and it sure never makes the MSM.

It seems to me the author does manage to get the message out (ok not on CNN but it's better then nothing). It also seems he and like minded people do know what they want. And i don't see them ranting and raving.

Seriously, what are you referring to when you talk about "scream and holler and rant and rave"? Who do you think are doing that and what makes you think that's what they are doing?

[sandnsea]

11. What message?

A message that nobody has any answers because it's not popular to approve of Democrats these days? Why else does he distort the Democrats' position on immigration. Here's the total of what he attributed to the Democrats and left:

"Some liberals, meanwhile, profess allegiance to a romanticized view of circumstances that fails to address the strain on domestic social programs, labor markets and the rule of law being created by the flood tide of illegal immigration."

Why do that? Well if he told the truth about that bill, he wouldn't have anything to write about now would he? Noo, he has to get his rant on and doesn't know any other way to talk about an issue that's important to him than to bash politicians. That's all anybody does anymore, that's what I'm referring to.

Okay?

[rman]

14. The message that NAFTA is a major cause of illegal immigration

and that the solution for illegal immigration is to revise NAFTA.

Is either bill proposing to revise NAFTA?

[sandnsea]

17. If nobody is doing anything right

Which is the way he starts his piece, then nobody is going to do anything about NAFTA either. Why doesn't he get that?? That's the message that piece sends, the message I was talking about - nobody is getting it right - and that's just not true.

[rman]

20. Is either bill proposing to revise NAFTA?

[sandnsea]

24. Immigration is not a treaty

That's the point. Don't go bashing on Democrats over an immigration bill in order to talk about trade agreements. That's MY complaint. If he wants to talk about improving trade agreements, just friggin' talk about it and keep the distortions out of it.

[rman]

27. But you do agree that (illegal) immigration is caused by a treaty

and i think we both know that neither immigration bill addresses NAFTA as the real cause.

[sandnsea]

29. No, we had illegal immigration before NAFTA

NAFTA is not the singlar cause of illegal immigration. The 1986 immigration reform was long before NAFTA and legalize 3 million immigrants. It's going to take a whole lot more than changes in NAFTA to lift other countries out of poverty. And the immigration bills don't address NAFTA because NAFTA is an international treaty, not a US law.

[rman]

30. It's not like the US has nothing to do with the creation of NAFTA

It is not outside the scope of US government to change it.

[sandnsea]

32. "Is either bill proposing to revise NAFTA"

That's what you asked. Immigration bills can't revise international treaties. That's what I answered. If you want to change the question to just NAFTA, that's another discussion. Which is what I said in my original post, because the author of that piece tried to do what you did, connect two things that can't be connected in immigration legislation itself. You can't change treaties in an immigration bill.

[Skidmore]

34. No, but you can work to create a meaningful immigration bill AND

you can scrap NAFTA as it currently exists and go back to the drawing board and get the resulting trade agreement to work in tandem with immigration law. Why all the angst over this? Let's just get it done.

[sandnsea]

36. Exactly

So why distort the immigration bill to make a case to change NAFTA. That was my complaint from the beginning. How does the labor guy think anybody is going to get behind changing NAFTA when he just said nobody did the right thing on immigration. Makes no sense. It's like saying all the doctors at the hospital are bad, and give me money to build a new wing.

[rman]

40. It is not a distortion to assert

that NAFTA and illegal immigration are connected.

It took you some time to make clear what your complaint is.
Initially you didn't get beyond accusations of "scream and holler and rant and rave".

[sandnsea]

42. THIS distortion - from post #11

That the only thing the author said about the view from the left is this:

"Some liberals, meanwhile, profess allegiance to a romanticized view of circumstances that fails to address the strain on domestic social programs, labor markets and the rule of law being created by the flood tide of illegal immigration."

And that that distorts the view of the Democratic Party, hell it does more than distort, it flat out omits the view of the Democratic Party.

I think you just want to argue and I haven't got time for it. I have to go.

[rman]

45. Well, the author does say "Some" liberals,

not "the Democratic Party".

So who's distorting?

[rman]

35. Given that both immigration and international trade agreements

are international issues, and given that the two are connected, i can't imagine there's no way to change a treaty in order to improve the situation with immigration.
If it can't be done in an immigration bill, then some other way must be devised. I'm sure Dems can do that.
As of yet is seems officials are not even mentioning the part that NAFTA plays in causing illegal immigration, in spite of the fact that the two are obviously connected.

[sandnsea]

37. A New Treaty

You can't change a treaty signed by Mexico and Canada in a US immigration bill. If you want to talk about NAFTA, talk about it. But the immigration bill can't change NAFTA. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

[rman]

38. "If it can't be done in an immigration bill,

then some other way must be devised." I don't know how to make it any clearer.

[sandnsea]

39. Waaay back on post #20

That's what I said. You asked if either immigration bill proposed to revise NAFTA and I told you it had to be changed in the treaty. I don't know why you can't drop it.

[rman]

41. Way back in post #35

I suggested that some other way must be devised.
Yet you keep pretending i want revision of NAFTA included in an immigration bill.

[sandnsea]

43. "Is either bill proposing to revise NAFTA"

Are you really going to deny you said that when it's sitting there smack in the middle of the thread???

Good grief.

[rman]

44. I don't deny a said that

I do say you seem unable to get past it and consider that some other way is possible.

[Skidmore]

28. Trade agreements can affect immigration policy by putting

pressure on other governments to adopt different labor and industrial standards. I don't see this in such black and white terms as you apparently do. A trade agreement is a tool to be used in the international arena. We do need to reduce the flow across the borders. As laudatory as it may be, we cannot support the entire world economically. We have yet to eradicate poverty in our own nation.

[sandnsea]

31. Treaty Law and Immigration Law aren't done the same

So asking whether an immigration law addressed NAFTA is kind of silly. That's what I said. They have to be done separately.

And yes, in comparison to the rest of the world, we actually have eradicated poverty in this country. There are very few people on the streets who wouldn't qualify for some kind of low income housing, food stamps, and other assistance that would get them off the streets. Yes there are waiting periods, but the problems of homelessness are more complicated than just getting people shelter anyway. As long as we have a free country, we can't force people to live in places they don't want to live in.

[Skidmore]

2. A "revise NAFTA" would be a good proposal for Dems to make and

to rally people around. How do we get one started?

[ulysses]

26. if, by "revise", you mean

"completely raze and rebuild from scratch", I'm there. :)

[Skidmore]

33. I can be there with you. Not a problem.

[rman]

46. I'm there to

obviously

[Skidmore]

47. OK, anyone care to propose how to start with getting both done...

1. repeal NAFTA and any other AFTA
2. get a sensible immigration bill that is not patched together to get votes in an election year by parties that are in trouble. I think both Rs and Dems are dead wrong on this one.

These items above must be dealt with in tandem--as halves of a whole. Who should this be taken to in the party? Should it be grassroots? Or is it too big for that or too nuanced? Can it be simplified?

I've got 2 loads of laundry to fold, potato salad to make, a deer fence to repair, and a whole lot of weeding to get busy on. Will check back later. I'd start a separate thread for this, but have too much to do outside to keep checking on it. Anyone care to do this?

[rman]

48. full text of NAFTA

http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/naftatce.asp