Amnesty for Immigrants, the only solution?

I have been very disheartened by some of the talk here on DU over the issue of illegal immigration. It's not everyday when I find myself agreeing more with George W. Bush and John McCain then people here on DU. But I guess it had to happen eventually. The argument I keep hearing, and the only legitimate one I agree with, is that by allowing illegal immigrants to work in America, we undermine American workers. Why? Because their wages/benefits are much lower and it thus brings down the wages and benefits of ordinary working Americans.

But there is a legitimate issue which is brought up by Bush/McCain. How do you get rid of 12 million people? This web site has championed the issues of Human and Constitutional rights ever since I first became a member in 2001. We stood up to the abuses (torture, spying, etc.) of this Administration even before it became popular to do so. So will we ignore that and create "snitch" hotlines? Create a secret police force, which will identify, apprehend and deport illegals? Will we round them up by the bus load and ship them off back to Mexico (or whereever they came from, since half of illegals are not even from Mexico or central America)?

How do we do it?

Many of these people, if not most, have actually been living in America for MANY, MANY years. They have roots and families here. Many have children - born in this country. They have homes. They have jobs. Their children go to school or to college. They participate in civic life. Are you people willing to see that image of MILLIONS of brown Americans being singled out and thrown out of the country? Women and children? The poorest of the poor? What a proud day that will be for us here on DU, huh? You may look at this as an "economic" issue, but I see it as a human issue. Where REAL PEOPLE will be affected.

Another issue:

Once we shut down the border, which in my opinion is the easiest part of this problem to solve, we will have created a new problem - just as we close the border from the outside-in, we will have closed it off from the inside-out. Which means we will have trapped 12 million illegal immigrants inside the country. Without status, the ability to services (like health and education) and/or the ability to work. We will have created an entirely new sub-cultural (larger than the entire city of New York) without rights, employment, etc. We will have inculcated their position into a permanent status. Thus, permanently undermining labor rights (that's the Republicans for ya, rhetoric which only makes the situation worse). How do you expect that to play out?

Solutions?

So what do we do? It is not uncommon for people to emigrate to a country (including the US) and stay while they await their citizenship. This is how my family first came here. The Mexicans are singled out, in my opinion, because of their brown skin and what more brown skin people means to the demographic breakdown of the southwestern United States. That is what drives this entire debate on the Republican side. The real criminals are not poor people in search for a better life and work. The real criminals are employers who take advantage of them. Who wish to bypass laws and encourage illegal activity to improve their bottom lines. This issue must first be addressed, if any real change can come. But that still doesn't address the truly sticky part of this whole debate. What do we do with those who are already here? My solution: I say we close the borders; attach severe criminal penalties to those companies which hire illegal immigrants; but we give those already living here, without a criminal record, amnesty and citizenship. This would solve the problems to working people, since these hispanics would be protected by the same rights as everyone else. They could unionize and demand higher pay, more benefits, etc. I don't see any other way that wouldn't make us as bad as the worst tyrants in history.

Do you agree?

If you agree with this post, give it a recommendation - so it can make the front page where others may read it

But not for the reason you would give, we can't, practically, "close the border" as you so assume. The costs will easily exceed any cost of illegal immigration in this country, especially if you want it to be effective rather than symbolic. What we NEED to do is go to the sources of the problem, and solve them. I laid out a plan myself, but instead of retyping the ENTIRE thing, it is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1064574

n/t

I agree with most of it. But I don't think it should replace NAFTA. Rather it should be a supplement to NAFTA. The problem, in my opinion, with free trade agreements - is not the free trade. It's that it only addresses the concerns of corporations, and doesn't address (and has no way of rectifying) issues involving workers and/or the environment.

The one thing I would include that you didn't was an international (or at least among signatory states) minimum wage.

Its number 6 on the Worker's Bill of Rights, also, the I agree about free trade, actually the current agreements, like NAFTA, I call "Free" Trade, with the quotes, the reason is that it isn't free trade unless both capital AND LABOR are freed in the same ways. If a corporation can open up a factory ANYWHERE in North America then WORKERS should be able to move to where the jobs are at, pretty simple if you think about it.

I took away from it a lot of parallels with the European Union. I'm not sure that's a perfect system either, but it is a boatload better than NAFTA in that it allows labor and benefits to cross borders along with capital.

I'm really bummed that I missed that at the time it was posted. You'd have gotten my K&R in a heartbeat.

end of problem

Those that have established families and a life here in america can stay and file legally for permenant status and eventually citizenship.

BUT WHY DO WE NEED TO INCREASE immigration levels

The guest worker programs Bush suggested will increase the current levels in addition to providing a path to citizenship for those here already. H5A and H5B visa programs as suggested by the Senate go directly after middle class working families jobs. IT IS NOTHING LESS THEN AN ASSUALT ON THE MIDDLE CLASS OF AMERICA - don't we have enough shrinkage on the working families already

IN ADDITION TO the additional millions that will come here unless tough mandatory prison sentences are enforced against illegal EMPLOYERS

Good point.

My main problem is they are abandoning traditional agricultural worker programs like 2HA and 2HB visas

The main problem is the requirements. The employer has to provided them with min. wage plus living accomodations, workers comp. insurance, and pay taxes. They won't do it. The government know these are the gross violators and does nothing about it.

Those programs could and would work if enforcement existed and NO it would not drive up the price of tomatoes.

The problem are the employers. They are the ones we should be pissed at. Not the workers.

On this point I agree with you.

be given preferential treatment over the hundreds of thousands who have waited in their home countries for legal permission to emigrate here?

...we do with the 12 million who are already here. I agree with you on illegal immigration staying illegal. But what about those who live here and have made a life here? I think people fail to see my main point, by making them citizens - they'll be just like the rest of us. They'll be entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

If you vote: no, send them back. Explain how we should accomplish that. Otherwise, you are no different than the Republicans, all up in arms about a problem - without any solutions. Because when you're forced to think about it, there really doesn't seem to be any way of getting rid of them without resorting to Milosevic-like tactics.

law breakers. I don't suggest they should be "rounded up" either. If we heavily fine employers of illegals, the some of them will leave. Those who stay will get along as they have, perhaps with the help of their legal relatives. I know many think this is harsh, but the country I grew up in is disappearing because of employers' demand for cheap labor. I think that's harsh too.

First, start actually enforcing sanctions against those who hire illegals. Find a hundred lawyers who have illegals working as domestics and fine the hell out of them. Fine a couple of large corporations too, and even a few small businesses. Jobs for illegals will dry up fairly quickly, and a large percentage will return to their home countries on their own.

Next, start actually deporting the illegals you do catch instead of 'catch and release'. Again, you wouldn't need to arrest all that many. Just make sure you do widely publicize the deportations.

As far as 'breaking up families', what's to stop the wife and kids (or whatever) from going back to the old country themselves?

Rush Limbaugh clones on this issue. Really amazing.

George Bush on this issue. Really amazing.

Exactly what I was thinking when the first ammendment came up that senor Kennedy so strongly opposed. Close the border NOW.
The people that are here .... they're here. Congrats , welcome to our nightmere ... But you have to close that border and our guys are totaly against that ... they want us to be the dumping ground of the world.

Democrats in general, and DUers specifically, have a history of championing civil/constitutional and human rights.

Illegal immigrants don't have constitutional rights in this country, and no one has a human right to my job.

Close the border and heavily fine employers. No 'buts'.

Provide money in the budget to transport any illegals who request transportation back to their respective border or airport.

The only thing I agree with in the OP is the part that reads:
"The real criminals are employers who take advantage of them. Who wish to bypass laws and encourage illegal activity to improve their bottom lines. This issue must first be addressed, if any real change can come." And this 1st "issue" is the real problem. And along with closing the border, it needs to be addressed before we address the problem of "what to do with those already here." We need to make sure the number of those "already here" stops increasing and, if at all possible, starts declining. That's the first priority.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

How many individuals and from what countries are currently undergoing a legal immigration process? They have paid application fees. Submitted reams of information. Had extensive background checks. Been fingerprinted. They have visas or temporary resident status to work and pay taxes. Some have been here for many, many years. Each year they go through the entire process of background check and application fees. During this time, if they committ a crime, or, in some cases get divorced, they are just put on a plane or in a cell in Florida. They can be reported to DHS by anyone who doesn't like the way they look or the fact they may say something if they are not paid what they were promised. We cannot ignore these people. These are people who are being ill-treated by the existing immigration system. Can we try and fix more than one specific immigration issue at once?

They're welcome to stay so long as they obey our laws, and apply for citizenship provided our economy can support the additional workers.

card is a bit extreme. Only then could someone apply for citizenship, which could take many more years. You can't punish someone for following the laws and policies of our country.

1) immigration needs to be managed at a level that our economy can support and is beneficial to the citizenry. If the economy can support 5 million immigrants at any one time, 1 million per year with a 5 year limit would be equivalent to 500,000 per year for a ten year term.
2) the limit should be set at a timeframe adequate for a typical immigrant to attain citizenship. From what I read, it sounds like it is not.

You keep saying close the borders and heavily fine the employers. Which I stated I agree with in my original post. The question is what do we do with those already here...

In another post, someone actually accused the Democrats of "pandering" to the hispanics because the party was putting on ads asking for their support. You're turning this party into a bunch of racist rednecks. So what are we suppose to hate hispanics now? This is the 1960s all over again, where Democrats of the south enabled the prejudice against blacks. Well done, folks.

This issue will be our downfall, in my opinion. If we lose the hispanics, we lose the election. Since you realize that all of those "realignment" arguments are predicated on the fact we continue to win the hispanic vote. Because if I were a hispanic, i'd look at McCain and Bush as my protector - not any of you.

This issue will be our downfall, in my opinion. If we lose the hispanics, we lose the election. Since you realize that all of those "realignment" arguments are predicated on the fact we continue to win the hispanic vote. Because if I were a hispanic, i'd look at McCain and Bush as my protector - not any of you.

What's worse: losing some hispanics or losing a huge majority of this country that's fed up with ILLEGAL immigration and an open border? Btw, many hispanics that legally earned citizenship are also opposed to ILLEGAL immigration.

Siding with Bush and McCain on this issue is a huge mistake. Why do you think they really want an amnesty program?
One reason is that their main constituents want an endless supply of cheap labor to drive wages down and profits up. Another reason is that the big oil companies want Mexico to privatize it's oil industry. Why else would they go against their party to keep that border wide open and continue pressing for amnesty? Why else would they keep catering to President Fox? Mexico's main source of revenue (behind oil) is what their people send to them from this country.

The majority of Americans (including lots of independents, some conservative republicans, and some legal hispanic immigrants) are also fed up with the wide open border and continued ILLEGAL immigration. If the democrats continue siding with Bush and McCain on the ILLEGAL immigration issue and amnesty, that just gives lots of people fed up with the republicans in the current administration a huge reason NOT to vote democrat.

Middle class workers are already being squeezed out by the right through outsourcing, foreign work visas, factories being moved overseas, imported illegal labor, etc. Must the democrats continue with the pro ILLEGAL immigrant stance and also help eliminate the middle class and help depress wages for the lower class? Amnesty (or any slight variation of it) will only result in a new flood of people across the border. Look what happened under Reagan. It's bad enough that we are forced to compete with cheap labor on the other side of the world (and lose badly). How are we supposed to compete a new flood of people willing to work for less than minimum wage?

And it's the reason I worry so much about this issue and the election. Those who are so hard core against immigration, are: 1) Raving mad Republicans. Who have never voted for us and never will; and, b) you people here on DU, that are drinking gallons of Lou Dobbs kool aid (and spewing up his rhetoric verbatim). I'm with you on the war, free trade, government corruption, the DLC, and most other issues. I agree with you about this issue generally. I only disagree with the way your rhetoric takes on poor people and punishes them for being poor. It disgusts me, actually.

So you guys are dead set wrong on this issue. As wrong as you can possibly be. All the economic arguments you made, could very easily have been made by Democrats in the 1950s and 1960s against blacks in the south - Oh wait, they were. You're opposing this for all the wrong reasons. You're doing it to spite Bush and fail to see the larger implications of what it means for our party. Forget the closing of the border part of it - which if you reread my post, you'd find I actually agree with you on. I'm talking about people here. I'm talking about decency and human rights - issues this party used to place a premium on. Issues we use to value.

You don't mind "losing a few hispanics." Well, Kerry lost "a few hispanics" - look at the wonders that strategy did for him.

Keep it up buddy. Let's see how far we go when we lose the hispanic vote and every election that follows. California...New Mexico...Florida...etc. Losing every shot we ever had in winning any southwestern states.

I always thought politics was about interests. You fail to see that with this issue, you have two groups within our party whose "interests" clash. That's always dangerous in politics. You fail to ask about the interests of the MILLIONS of legal hispanics living in our country that are probably as disgusted as I am over the tone, and unreasonable nature, of your arguments.

That's all. Go on spewing your hate. Rush Limbaugh would be proud.

You start these threads, ranting about the same issues over and over. We try to engage you with rational arguments, and you call us stupid. I DO GET IT. I just have different priorities than you, largely I suspect, due to our different experiences and ages. I know "were talking about real people here." You constantly imply that anyone who disagrees with you "hates brown people" and lacks basic human kindness. For many of us, the issue is larger than just the immigrants involved. For you, it isn't. Fine. Disagree, but you won't win anyone over calling him stupid.

"I always thought politics was about interests. You fail to see that with this issue, you have two groups within our party whose "interests" clash. That's always dangerous in politics. You fail to ask about the interests of the MILLIONS of legal hispanics living in our country that are probably as disgusted as I am over the tone, and unreasonable nature, of your arguments."

You should do some research. A good place to start would be with Caesar Chavez.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/03/immigration.html

Peter1x9,

Again, I agree with you. Thanks for posting the link to the article by Thom Hartmann. It's outstanding.

It's worth pointing out what Thom Hartmann's implied solution is for "those already here." I'll quote it:
"As long as employers are willing and able (without severe penalties) to hire illegal workers, people will risk life and limb to grab at the America Dream. When we stop hiring and paying them, most will leave of their own volition over a few years, and the remaining few who are committed to the US will obtain citizenship through normal channels."

I think Hartmann is right on target. And no one considers Hartmann a "racist" or a "xenophobe."

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

Since 1998, Mexicans have been allowed to hold dual citizenships, and the law in Mexico has been changed so that even their American-born children can get Mexican citizenship. Vincente Fox wants to maintain the allegiance of Mexicans living in America so that there are millions of voters here voting for Mexico's agenda.

You are worried about "the Hispanic vote"? FYI, Hispanics are not a homogeneous population, and have as much diversity (racial, ancestral and economic) as the non-Hispanic American population. Hispanic voters as a whole DO NOT vote as a bloc. The Cuban-American CEO of my company is simply not going to be voting for the interests of the Mexican illegal immigrant outside doing lawn work.

I agree that there should be some amnesty, simply because the U.S. gov't created this situation to bolster corporate interests. But it's not a "human rights" issue. Black Americans in the 50s were AMERICANS by birth, and were guaranteed civil rights by the U.S. Constitution. Foreigners do not have the same rights as American citizens. But it's not unfair, because Mexican nationals already have a full slate of rights in their native Mexico under their own constitution. The situations are not analogous.

You should post this as an OP. Far more people will see it that way.

I'm not sure what you're saying in your 1st paragraph, but the rest of it I wholeheartedly agree with.

"Losing a few Hispanics," which was stated later in this thread,
is nothing compared to "losing a lot of middle class and working Americans." Kerry didn't lose the election because he lost "a few Hispanics." He lost the election because he lost a lot of middle class and working Americans who didn't think he had anything to offer them.

Had Kerry taken a strong, anti-illegal immigration position, he would have beat Bush by a landslide. But Kerry had only slightly more (apparent) appeal to working Americans than Bush. (In reality, Kerry would have been MUCH better for workers, but this was hard to decipher from his speeches. His website, however, made his pro-labor positions more obvious.)

Again, post this as an OP. It's really good. And include a link to the Hartmann article. It's also really good.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

This issue will be our downfall, in my opinion. If we lose the hispanics, we lose the election. Since you realize that all of those "realignment" arguments are predicated on the fact we continue to win the hispanic vote. Because if I were a hispanic, i'd look at McCain and Bush as my protector - not any of you.

If we lose the working class voters we will lose the election. Racial politics are not the only kind of politics.

Some families have been here for generations and have close ties to their communities.

Democrats should not be swayed by the hard-ass, heartless, rightwing attitudes toward this issue. Democrats are fully capable of comprehensive solutions.

This issue is ripe for pointing out the Republicans incompetence to date when it comes to border security and their heartless attitude toward people.

Yes, and Bush and McCain's heartless Right-Wing refusal to prosecute employers for hiring illegal aliens, and suppressing American wages as a result. And Bush and McCain's heartless Right-Wing desire to grant amnesty to employers who've unlawfully hired illegal aliens to lower American wages and force many American citizens into poverty.

Yes, the Democrats are perfectly capable of "comprehensive solutions." Prosecute employers for hiring illegal immigrants immediately. Progressively increase the penalty for each subsequent violation. Have a "3-strikes" law. On the 3rd violation the employer does mandatory prison time. Make employer verification of Social Security numbers mandatory. Prosecute those who fail to do so. Make it a felony for an employer to knowingly accept false documentation of citizenship. Pass H.R.98, creating a tamper-proof Social Security card that leaves employers NO excuse for being unaware of an employee's citizenship status. Aggressively pursue those who steal Social Security numbers, since it is already a felony. Increase our internal enforcement capacity by hiring more agents to track down the employers who hire illegally. Remove the ban on sharing of Social Security information between government agencies.

I think this is fairly "comprehensive." Of course, more can always be added, if more "obfuscation" is required, as it is in the current Senate version of the Comprehensive Immigration Amnesty Bill.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

EconomicPatriotForum

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

which seems to be the sum total of Tancredo's plan, that and rounding up and deporting 12 million illegal immigrants.

The Republicans have always had the tools to deal with employers hiring illegals, and the suppression of wages has always been their goal.