Anyone else here oppose the immigration compromise?

[mdmc]

For the record, I support open immigration and world citizenship. I oppose this compromise simply because Bush supports it.

At this time, I would prefer to enforce current laws, and secure our borders. Sure it might cost 400 billion dollars, which we could afford if we weren't in Iraq.

I feel for the "illegals", but am glad the GOP sank this deal-i-o. Yet another black eye for Emperor feather in my cap.

[bryant69]

1. "I oppose this compromise simply because Bush supports it."

I'm not sold on the immigration compromise myself, but that seems like a bad reason to oppose it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mdmc]

6. I agree with you, my friend. If Bush opposed it, I would be in favor

Such utter illogic shames me. I opposed the port deal for this reason as well.

[pampango]

12. I understand where you are coming from, but I cannot let Bush

determine my position on issues, even in a reactionary sense.

Killing this compromise means defacto "legalization" for the 12 million illegal immigrants, since they are not going anywhere, especially since many of their children are Americans. They will remain "illegal" though so they will be more easily exploited by their employers.

More will keep arriving every day. "Border enforcement" will continue to be a joke either because the current laws are unenforceable (How do you prove that employers knowingly hire illegal workers? Were the documents they received good fakes or bad fakes?) or because there is not political will, in any administration but particularly this one, to target illegal immigrants.

[TwilightGardener]

2. Rarely do I agree with John McCain, but I do on this:

to do nothing, to pass no compromise bill, to wait another two or more years, is to offer defacto amnesty. An imperfect bill is a start--it can be modified, amended, improved, but it's a start.

[Jim Warren]

3. I do

and perhaps for some of the same reasons as you.

My main opposition has to do with American workers and jobs. I think there are many people who support illegal immigration who are in positions where they feel their job won't be in jeopardy to a low wage counterpart. They could be in for some surprises.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1333827

Font Tag
Teachers from Mexico to Help Fill Positions in Utah School Districts
June 11th, 2007 @ 6:03pm

Several Utah school districts have just hired a total of 12 new teachers from Mexico. The State Office of Education has been working on the plan for almost a year. This is part of an agreement Governor Huntsman made with Mexico when he visited there a couple years ago.

School districts say they're happy about it. The teachers will be filling positions that districts can't seem to staff right now. At the same time, the teachers will help a growing population of Hispanic students in the state. School districts are having a harder and harder time finding elementary school teachers, science and math teachers.

[gratuitous]

4. What compromise?

As far as I can tell (and I've been a casual peruser of the news on this at best), there are about four or five different proposals floating around, and none of them has a majority behind it. "Immigration reform" looks like so many solutions in search of a problem to me.

Is the final bill supposed to provide a path to citizenship or isn't it?

Does the final bill kick out everyone without papers, wherever and whenever they're found?

Are there exceptions for people with fears of retribution back home for holding unpopular political views?

Does this just apply to folks from South Of the Border or to aliens from all other countries?

What happens to minor children and dependents who were born in the U.S.? Do they have to go back with Mom or Dad, or can they stay? And if these citizens stay, who provides for them?

Gee, I guess I have a lot of questions.

[bliss_eternal]

5. Self delete...

:)

[OregonBlue]

7. I oppose it because I believe that the minute that illegals get their work visas they will be

looking for new jobs and will not be content to "do the jobs that Americans will not do". Then, since we know the borders will not be closed, we will get a whole new batch of 12,000,000 illegals who will do the jobs that the "immigrants with green cards and Americans will not do". It's endless. Why not just get rid of the borders and we can all live, work, etc. wherever we want.

It is going to be a race to the bottom of the wage barrel for American workers!!

[Cleita]

10. We need to stop supporting the regimes in Latin American

countries who don't reform their labor laws in order to keep their workers at home working at jobs that they can support their families with. We need to stop trying to overthrow Latin American governments that are trying to address the problems of poverty in their countries by nationalizing resources to pay for reform.

[Jim Warren]

11. As do I

I think you've touched upon something that will come to pass and have dour consequences in the near term future for many American workers who are barely hanging on economically in line level employment that can't be outsourced and so far has been not up for grabs.

As the newly documented workforce works it's way up the job line, the surplus labor created will have the effect of dropping pay scales to minimum wage. At the same time, much of that income in not even spent in our economy rather sent back home in remittances.

[Cleita]

8. After fifty years of watching politics, I have come to the conclusion

that anything the Republicans legislate, no matter how good is sounds on the surface, has a hidden agenda and/or poison pills in it. An example would be the Jarvis Ammendment in California back in the late seventies. It was an ammendment to lower property taxes to 1%, because the real estate boom back then was making elderly people lose their homes on account of they couldn't pay their property taxes because of the increases in value. This is the way it was sold to us.

This very ammendment is the one that brought us the homeless problem because it had a domino effect across the country. The money from the property taxes is what paid for all the programs to help out the mentally ill, the handicapped and many others who were thrown out on the streets when funding dried up. Instead people with lavish estates pay only 1% in property taxes to this day. The elderly still have a problem hanging on to their homes.

No thanks.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Eh, I'm divided.

To be honest, the damage has already been done by the first amnesty. I know many illegal immigrants first hand that are just waiting for another amnesty to occur, hoping to stay in the country just long enough. We opened that door already, and it's not going to be closed any time soon. To think otherwise is simply naive.

Personally, I believe we need to do the following:

1) Streamline the INS process, allowing people that want to immigrate into the country a vastly simplified process to follow.

2) Severely ramp up immigration quotas. If someone wants to get into the country legally, they should have a legitimate opportunity to do so. They currently do not, with the quotas being as stiflingly small as they are now. Furthermore, illegal immigrants have no legal recourse if they encounter a problem in the states. If an employer decides they don't want to pay for services rendered, they don't really have to, because the immigrant can't exactly go to the police for enforcement. Also, there's way too much indentured servitude caused by "paying off" debts for being smuggled into the country in the first place. It's far too dangerous a practice.

3) Shut down the border. This is a serious national security concern, and the funding spent on Iraq would've been far better utilized by ramping up border security.

4) Drop the hammer on corporations that hire illegal immigrants. Fine them $50k for each worker that is undocumented, and then we'll see if they still think it's cheaper to hire illegal aliens. Also, if the opportunities to find work are quelled, the reason for coming over illegally will also be quelled.

Namely, the bill stops short on #4, which may be the most important to any kind of immigration reform. So, while the bill is a start, it's got a long way to go.

[pampango]

14. I like your ideas, but I think that there is little possibility of increasing

immigration quotas substantially.

I wonder if the 12 million illegal immigrants had all arrived here legally (due to some magical law that provided a quota that large) whether we wouldn't be hearing some of the same complaints about the flooding of the blue collar work force with unskilled immigrants causing a loss of jobs and wages for American workers. That is what happened when the Irish immigrated here. They were legal, because there were no laws against their immigration, but there was still plenty of resistance.

Would there not be a lot of resistance to large numbers of legal immigrants, largely unskilled workers from the Third World unless we put a skill requirement into any new law, being allowed to enter the country? I suspect that you would see much the same reaction, even at DU, that you do now to the "illegal" immigrants.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. To answer your first pondering, I'd say it wouldn't be as bad

For one simple reason - they'd likely not get hired. If a company has to pay these two people the exact same wages, which do you think would get the job: A) the one that speaks English and is likely a caucasian or B) the one that does not speak English and is probably Latino?

I think the answer is A, overwhelmingly. It's the disparity in wage demands that causes illegal immigrants to be more likely to take "our jobs". I think there are plenty of unskilled jobs to go around these days, much more so than in the past because there is a much higher rate of workers that are skilled than there used to be.

There is some kernel of truth to the idea that they're taking the jobs that Americans don't want. However, Americans don't want them because they're not willing to pay a living wage to do them. If you make all of these workers legal, you'd have to start paying them at least minimum wage - which makes the job more palatable to existing American workers.

I'm fairly loathe to touch the whole skilled/unskilled worker cap idea. Firstly, it gets dicey deciding what jobs are skilled and which are not. Secondly, there are legit issues that need to be considered if you're talking about unskilled workers, such as the higher likelihood that they will be dependent in some way on the government for basic services much more so than skilled workers. As such, you need to ask if the role of our government and the funding that comes from taxpayers should go to people that don't have to come to U.S., as opposed to funding our own existing citizens. Frankly, it's a bit of a moral dilemma, and I don't see any easy answers to it. I'm more likely to veer away from the cap on unskilled workers, but I can see both sides of the argument.

[pampango]

16. You might be right that the 12 million, if they had been legally admitted,

would have been less likely to be hired than are the illegal immigrants. Wouldn't that imply, though, that legalizing them now, even after they are here, would have the same effect on their employability as if they were legal when they entered the country? As legal residents they would have to be paid the same wages as others, putting less pressure on the jobs and wages of Americans.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. Probably.

Like I think I said, the amnesty cat has long been let out of the bag. I think the major hangup about a new amnesty would be the idea that you're essentially rewarding people that broke our laws, which while the idea has some merit, it's being a bit obtuse and harsh. Realistically speaking, you simply can't deport 12 million people. It's not going to happen. Which is why any bill that is passed should ensure that the 12 million don't get into the country illegally in the first place.

[mdmc]

18. thanks for your input

peace and low stress:kick:

[LSparkle]

13. I oppose it for the same reasons Cesar Chavez was against "bracero" pgm

It weakens labor and basically condones indentured servitude. I'm for enforcing the laws on the books and looking for ways to pressure Mexico into being a fairer economy for its own citizens, but I do NOT support weakening unions and workers' rights through this bogus "guest worker" program.

[annabanana]

19. (me too). . .Although it's difficult to overlook the great job it's

doing to shred the Repug coalition. . Knuckle-draggers vs Oligarchs