What do you think of the Democratic Leadership's stance on immigration?

Reid said the overhaul must include heightened border enforcement, a "guest worker" program and a "path to citizenship" for the estimated 11 million people in the United States illegally. He called legislation by Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., a "good place to start."

Do you think this is the best solution? Why or why not? I am also wondering if the 500,000 protesters in L.A. would be agreeable to this kind of program?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1761023

This is totalitarian bullshit.

That is the Sensenbrenner plan. It is critical to know what you're talking about on this in order to get the right plan. The Democratic plan is also a path to citizenship, not a path to an endless pool of workers to exploit which is the Bush plan. Seemingly small differences, but HUGE changes in the outcome.

I'm just making a personal statement, if you don't mind.

Perhaps you're not familiar with how often bills get mixed up and then used to attack Democrats. That's all.

so that's better than the GOP's "Final Solution" to immigration (Halliburton detention camps).

My proposal: Businesses who hire illegals can
a) face fines and send the workers & families back home at employer's expense

-OR-

b) agree to sponsor their employees for legal work at no less than minimum wage, pay into FICA, etc.

...and families MUST stay together.

social workers, soup kitchen workers, anyone who helps them. it is lock em plan.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Progress Report: The Case For Comprehensive Reform
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:39:07 -0500 (EST)
From: American Progress Action Fund <progress@americanprogressaction.org>
Reply-To: progress@americanprogressaction.org
To: xxxx



by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney
Amanda Terkel and Payson Schwin

March 24, 2006

The Case For Comprehensive Reform


http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=1331575&ct=2093045
IMMIGRATION

The Case For Comprehensive Reform

The United States' immigration system is broken, and getting worse. The number of undocumented in the United States has ballooned to roughly 12 million as of March 2006. Next week, the atmosphere will grow more urgent, as the Senate takes up immigration reform. For conservatives, it is a moment of truth. Columnist David Brooks warns that his fellow conservatives may "walk off a cliff on the subject of immigration," fundamentally "shifting away from the idea that the United States is a universal nation, where immigrants come from across the world to work, rise and join in the pursuit of happiness." Meanwhile, "tens of thousands of immigrants around the country stepped up a series of protest rallies," with events planned in 10 cities early next month. Most importantly, next week is an opportunity for Congress to take a bold step towards comprehensive immigration reform, including increased border security measures, strong moves to crack down on businesses that hire undocumented workers, and a path for immigrants to move out of the shadows.

EARNED CITIZENSHIP VS. GUEST WORKER PROGRAMS: The most comprehensive reform proposal on the table -- the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act proposed by Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) -- includes a responsible plan to help undocumented workers become lawful, tax-paying members of our society. To earn citizenship, individuals would have to apply for a six-year temporary status, have a job, pay taxes, obey the law, learn English, and pay a $2,000 penalty for having come here illegally. Nor could they "cut in front of the more than 3 million 'green card' applicants who have obeyed the law." This is a rigorous but fair process. Many conservatives, however, including President Bush, support a limited temporary "guest worker" program, which allows undocumented to apply only for a six-year temporary residency. This strategy is impractical and irresponsible on its face: undocumented workers will have little incentive to expose their illegal status if they face mandatory deportation after just six years. It is also unpopular. According to a Time poll, the overwhelming number of Americans (76 percent) favor gaving undocumented individuals a path to earned citizenship.

ENFORCEMENT-ONLY: A FAILING POLICY: Draconian enforcement-only immigration policies backed by conservatives during the last two decades have been an expensive failure. The undocumented population has soared from 2.5 million in 1986 to 12 million today "despite a 519 percent increase in funding and a 221 percent increase in staffing for border patrol programs." A study by the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies showed that border controls alone have either "no statistically significant effect" on the propensity to migrate, or actually "encourage migrants to stay in the United States longer." Moreover, hardliner support for enforcement-only policies is weakening important alliances: U.S.-Mexico relations have "been in a downward spiral over the last six years," and 11 Latin American foreign ministers met last month in Colombia to discuss ways to counter plans for a massive, ineffective, and costly new border wall. Says Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute: "There is a certain emperor-has-no-clothes aspect to these enforcement-only bills. The only way they can work would be if you totally militarize the border. And even then, people would find some other way to come in." Thankfully, some in Congress are standing up against this approach: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced this week that he would "use every procedural means at my disposal," including a filibuster, to block passage of Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) enforcement-only bill.

POLITICS AND IDEOLOGY MAY KILL CHANCES FOR REAL REFORM: The political grandstanding on immigration was typified this week by Majority Leader Frist. Just as the Senate Judiciary Committee had broken through a days-long stalemate and reached initial compromises on comprehensive reform, Frist announced plans to bring his own bill to the floor for debate. Frist's legislation lacks even a "guest worker" program, and so has no chance of passage. But no matter: Frist was more interested in appealing to immigration hardliners than actually addressing the problem. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) called Frist's move a "colossal mistake." As for President Bush, though he has called for Congress to adopt a guest worker program, the White House last December also praised the draconian House bill -- the one that may kill chances of comprehensive reform -- as a "significant step forward." President Bush should be pressing hardline conservatives in the House to end their opposition to fair, comprehensive immigration reform.

CRACKDOWN ON CORPORATE ABETTERS: The U.S. government also needs to crack down on the businesses that routinely and knowingly hire undocumented workers. The Bush administration has a dismal record on employer enforcement. In 2003, it made just 443 worksite arrests of the estimated 6 million undocumented workers in the U.S. at that time. Even worse, the adminstration in 2004 issued only three notices of intent to fine employers for hiring undocumented workers, a drop from 417 in 1999, according to a Government Accountability Report. "Even when employers were caught hiring undocumented workers, the penalties typically have been minor," in part because Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "often lowers the amount of a fine in negotiations with employers." Richard Stana, director of homeland security and justice issues at the GAO, testified last year that worksite enforcement "continues to be a low priority for ICE." As long as employers are willing to hire undocumented workers, people will find a way to come here illegally. We need tougher penalties and tougher enforcement.


http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=1331575&ct=2093045

CRIMINALIZING THE GOOD WORKS OF THE FAITHFUL: In Isaiah 49:10, the Old Testament reads, "They will neither hunger nor thirst, nor will the desert heat or the sun beat upon them. He who has compassion on them will guide them and lead them beside springs of water." In this spirit, faith-based humanitarian groups like Humane Borders have offered basic medical and food supplies to those attempting to cross the U.S. border. These migrants, half of whom are women or children, face dangers including "fording flood-prone rivers, crossing dangerous deserts on foot and evading the armed gangs of smugglers and traffickers who will attempt to rob, rape and kidnap them." Hundreds die attempting to cross each year. Yet several bills being considered in the Senate now, including the potential compromise bill backed by Arlen Specter (R-PA), include a provision that would make it a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison to offer aid to undocumented immigrants. According to Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney, "the proposed law is so broad that it would criminalize even minor acts of mercy like offering a meal or administering first aid." Mahoney has instructed the priests of his archdiocese to disobey the law if it is enacted: "Denying aid to a fellow human being violates a law with a higher authority than Congress — the law of God." As Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said this week, "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

not Americans pay for their healthcare...Americans don't get socialized medicine and neither should they...


that issue isn't brought up???

Why can't Dems see this side of this horrid legislation? I swear, there are a bunch of 'it's all about ME and MY job and MY family' people posting in these threads this weekend. Damnit, that's RW thinking. We are the party of inclusion. That means EVEN illegal immigrants. If they are oppressed, our party is where they belong. If you don't agree with this, then damn you're in the wrong party. I am talking basic principles here, folks. You are either with us or against us. If you support Sensebrainless's legislation, you aren't thinking like a Democrat.

We do not have to let corporate interests dictate the choice of solutions.

"We believe the most effective way of stemming the flow of illegal immigration is to reduce the VAST DEMAND for CHEAP, SLAVE LABOR who won't complain when they're treated like shit."

"This can be done by raising the minimum wage, eliminating incentives to American businesses to outsource and offshore high-skill, traditionally high-wage jobs, and investing heavily in the investigation and enforcement of employers exploiting illegal immigrants, and imposing heavy punitive fines on violators."

That would do it.

helpfully,
Bright

There should be a the same minimum wage for all workers, and in America an American worker should get preference. In other words, someone here who is not a citizen should not be doing work at a minimum wage job that an American wants to do.

The problem is how to get enough enforcement officers to force businesses to do this. Perhaps simply raising the fines to astronomical levels would be sufficient discouragement for anyone tempted to offer lower wages to an undocumented worker.

Americans must also understand, of course, that this will lead to significantly higher prices in the produce section of our local supermarkets.

I will buy more frozen veggies, which are actually more nutritious than "fresh" veggies that have been trucked across country and left sitting in the grocery store. I'll eat less winter lettuce and eat more frozen greens. I'll buy more produce from our farmer's market in the summer and freeze or can it for winter. I'll even start backyard gardening again.

Not much of a sacrifice on my part, if it means more Americans are paid a living wage.

Along with an expedited process for the 3 million on the waiting list, families first after that, and a temporary worker process for those who want to become citizens. It specifically does not open the door to an endless pool of workers to be exploited.

There would be no problem with illegal immigration if Workers' Rights (including wages) would be as globalized as Corporate Rights are.

So true!
There would be no problem with illegal immigration if Workers' Rights (including wages) would be as globalized as Corporate Rights are.

Where do we start? Here right at home this is one of the many of what should be the first steps in helping encourage democracy around the world if politicians that speak of such are truely serious about wanting to do so.

Personally, I don't believe many of them are due to the way the corporation (and we have alllowed this to go on) have corrupted our political process.


If, a corporation is considered to have the rights that a person does (which they are) then why do they only suffer 'slap on the wrist style justice'?

Why do we not hold a business that's caught hiring illegals or paying slave wages accountable? They either pay an acceptable living wage or they aren't allowed to do business.

They should suffer their business being desolved. It used to be they lost their charter and for all the brew ha ha that I hear from the Right on the 'Founding Fathers' intentions why is this never mentioned? Ahhh, yes, the hypocrisy! It's only 'the rule of law' when they say so.

In Amerika, we the people go to prison if we break the law.

Alright, so I will cut the corporations some slack here by making it their 2nd time getting caught breaking the law before they have their business desolved.

Why not have equal justice for the corporation? Have they not decided 'they have personhood' under a false pretense due to a bad reading by a clerk?

Sorry, they can't have it both ways we either stand up and stop this or we will continue to be crushed and laws made to protect the corporation or as like to call them the corporatistas.

Because these corporations have obtained the right to to pay slave wages from instutitions that do the facto over-rule the laws of souvereign nation states. These are instutitions such as the IMF, WTO - instutitions created by corporate interests. So called Free Trade Agreements are the vehicle for these rights.

In many US states the old laws for regulating corporations still are in the books, it just takes a lot of activism to have them put to use. 'Corporate Personhood' is derived from abuse of a law that was never intended for corporations (14th amendment).
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/

This is the system the US set up. While we are not necessarily soley responsible for the Mexican political and economic situation, we do bear some responsibility.

Globalization, as it is in effect now, caters to American corporate interests. All those bitching about illegal immigration, outsourcing, and whatever else, should realize that this is the result of our own actions. WTO was set up to "American" (multinational actually) corporate demands. India, China, Mexico, and other developing nations are simply playing the game (and pretty well actually) that was rigged to favor US interests. And Americans elected those lawmakers that created the system.

Every wealthy nation that is bordered by a poorer nation will have those that enter illegally. Yes, laws should be enforced. Being that resources are finite and that there are security risks when it's not known who enters and leaves, open borders are not practical.

But neither is "shipping people off in box cars" (as I've seen a few here suggest). Sorry, but I refuse to agree to such extreme measures. I also believe in seperation of church and state. And if a religious institution serves the poor, those services cannot be interfered with by the state.

If we claim that families are important, we will not agree to such a bill. Sensenbrenner and Tancredo are ass holes. They are devoid of all compassion. They are scum.

We can of course continue with the porous border and non-enforcement policies we practice now. That would be real smart.:sarcasm: This policy puts ever increasing strains on state, city, and local services that are already strained to the breaking point.:wtf:

........OR...........

We can adopt the "Nothing In Life Comes Free" policy. We start by closing down our borders and ENFORCING that closed border policy - NOT TO KEEP EVERYONE OUT - but simply to limit those coming in FOR OUR OWN GOOD. A guest worker program, where an illegal alien earns their citizenship over a period of time would be one approach. We currently have the technology to track illegal aliens, we just aren't using it.

.....or.......

We can shut down our borders, enforce that closed border policy with an iron fist and put an end to the entire problem.

PERSONALLY, I favor # 2. Ok, flame away everyone.

There would be no problem with illegal immigration if Workers' Rights (including wages) would be as globalized as Corporate Rights are.

......how many countries would go along with this?? I'm not saying utopia wouldn't be nice, rather I'm saying it isn't likely to happen.

edited to add: If Mexico had better conditions for it's people then yes they might be willing to stay home. So the question becomes how do we force another country to raise its standard of living?? Reality here.

fair workers rights?

Conditions in Mexico are in part caused by regulations that are issued by transnational organizations created by big corporations. I'm talking about so called "Free Trade Agreements" and organizations such as the IMF and WTO. Those agreements include reduction of such things as Workers Rights and protection of the natural environment, because corporations see those things as "trade barriers" (more to the point: those things interfere with corporations abilities to maximize profits).

.....isn't likely in an imperfect world. There WILL NEVER be an answer to this issue that pleases everyone. So, an answer has to be found that hurts the least amount of people as possible while doing the most amount of good. The focus, for our own well being and our own safety - should be on our own borders first though.

do not want to be exploited.

by enabling NAFTA etc.

....the hundreds and thousands of illegals crossing our borders by the day.

I've lived in an area of the country pretty much taken over by illegal aliens so this is probably the only issue I disagree with most liberal views on.

There are NO ANSWERS that will please everyone SO OUR FOCUS must be here at home with our own citizens first and foremost.

mostly in developing nations, but the US hasn't been spared and it's getting worse. It's not the immigrants who set the minimum wage or the cost of medicare. It's a RW law that makes it easier for immigrants to enter the US illegally (Bush Sr's 1990 Immigration Act). There are better solutions to this problem, solutions supported by a vast majority - one that is not represented by the government because of its corporate interests.

"there are no answers" is such a defeatist statement.

.....and neither do I.

What I said was "there are no answers that will please everyone" That IS NOT DEAFEST that is just simple fact.

The one thing I agree with you on is going back to the pre-Bush Sr days and even toughen those laws up and then add extremely stiff fines for companies hiring illegal aliens and even renting/selling to illegal aliens.

This is the one issue I've seen first hand so again I say there are NO ANSWERS THAT WILL PLEASE EVERYONE.

In the future, if you want to quote me kindly use the whole quote.

A few want the rules to be so that they benefit, at the expense of others. Those others are the vast majority that doesn't want rules that benefit only a few. Those few are a small minority.

What was that about taking words out of context?
I never said "everyone" must be pleased.
I did say "solutions supported by a vast majority"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=756525&mesg_id=758526

And now you accuse me of taking words out of context, while not i but you are taking words out of context.


Do you or don't you think that globalization of workers rights and fair wages are solutions for illegal immigration, solutions supported by a vast majority, not only in the US but elsewhere also?

....."....globalization of workers rights and fair wages...."(the whole statement below) is a good end to work toward but imho that is utopian view. I just don't think it will ever work, not just because of the US but because of the world being what it is.

Your statement: "Do you or don't you think that globalization of workers rights and fair wages are solutions for illegal immigration, solutions supported by a vast majority, not only in the US but elsewhere also?"

Having lived in an area taken over by illegal aliens I'm more concerned with the here and now. So having lived it I think we need to start with shutting the borders down tight and go back to pre-Bush Sr days with some real teeth in the laws. Since I've been there and done that one, this is probably the only issue I disagree with liberals on. By fines at a minimum of $1 million a day per illegal alien and housing fines of 1 year of gross sales per illegal alien we'd put a quick stop to the issue.

that will never make it work?

If the US can sigh an agreement that affects workers rights and wages in mexico in a negative way (NAFTA/CAFTA), then the US can also sign an agreement that affects workers rights in a positive way. Then Mexican workers would have no reason to illegally migrate to the US.
Knowing that you'd be obstructed every step of the way by corporate lobbyists, don't you think it would be worth the effort to get the US to sign such an agreement?

........I'm not overly concerned with what Mexico (you mentioned Mexico in particular, not me) wants/needs or doesn't need/want. Mexico is President Fox's affair, not ours.

I'm interested in what is and is not good for the US. It is good for the US to clamp down on BOTH of our borders, hire Americans as border guards, and enact some very strict rules about hiring and housing illegal aliens.

As I may have mentioned before, I lived in an area completely taken over by illegal aliens so I saw first hand that amnesty, accommodating laws doesn't do any good. The more some illegal aliens are given the more they want.

immigrants were required to earn citizenship. People were not allowed to simply stream into this country and demand
their rights as citizens when they were in fact not citizens. If you dare to ask that immigrants learn English,
learn our Constitution (as they had to in the past) and go through a ceremony granting the rights of citizenship
while explaining the responsibilities of that citizenship - well, then you are called a racist, a bigot, a hatemonger.

I am so tired of the concept of a more structured, demanding citizenship process being called racist that I could scream.
When Bush, Sr. did away with citizenship REQUIREMENTS with his so called immigration "reform" he simply created chaos
with this free for all system.

With regard to the issue of immigration it seems that liberals are loving, but not wise. I do not see any benefit to
our nation's future by allowing people to stay here who have no expressed loyalty to our country and its Constitution.

We like to believe that a few hardy Puritans came to America for "freedom". Actually, their "freedom" was akin to that of the Taliban. But, most immigrants came to the colonies to better their lives materially. Since then, the vast majority of immigrants to this country came here for the same reasons that the new immigrants are coming, to escape the poverty of their home countries.

This is just the latest wave to made into bogeymen by the reactionaries.

That said, I think the Kennedy/McCain approach is the most reasonable at this time. Sensebrenner's is the latest version of "No Irish Need Apply" with an added dose of racism to appeal to appeal to the rednecks.

the vast land, water and energy resources of the past. We have 12 million (or more) people living here illegally. Should we just let another 12 million in without planning or control? If they settle in the Southwest or Plains States, where is their water going to come from? If we can implement green technologies and plan environmentally-friendly communities, it might be OK. If we don't the whole country is going to be one long, ugly suburban strip. I'm very well acquainted with Southern California and South Florida. That's why I chose to live in Minnesota.

As far as people coming here for freedom, they have and they still do. Minnesota has a large Hmong population that came here, not for money, but to escape genocide. We also have a large and growing Somali and Ethiopian community. They are refugees. I welcome those legal immigrants.

On edit to add a completely frivolous note: It's nice to meet another woodworker on DU (or anywhere actually). As I was building a cabinet this evening, I was bemoaning the current lack of interest in creating things in the physical world. (Or maybe I just spend too much time in a household of computer and PS2 addicts...):hi: