Redstate

One way to get the base back and fired up to support Republicans in the 2006 midterms would be to take a hard-line approach on immigration. For too long the party leadership has been out of touch with the base on this issue, preferring to listen to the fat-cat financiers who like illegal immigration because it's cheap labor.

who want more legal immigration because we think it is just to give opportunities to those who are willing to work to improve their lives.

But alas, I see very few people acknowledging that raising the number of legal immigrants would lower the numer of illegal immigrants, ease the burden on our border patrol, stop the underground below minimum wage racket and continue to help our growing economy.

Supply and demand strike again.

The fact of the matter is that we've got immigration laws that have about as much grounding in common sense as the Volstead Act.

I've not really heard mucho a plan to enforce these laws, nor do I see much candor in exactly what it would cost in taxpayer money, loss of civil liberties, and in terms of economic displacement.

One thing that needs to be understood is that the need for more labor for some of these jobs is directly due to Roe v. Wade.  One million abortions a year for 32 years has distorted our labor supply.

"The poll also found half of those surveyed want even legal immigration cut or halted altogether,"

Considering that America is suffering from a severe shortage of highly trained and educated native people in the sciences, cutting off our access to overseas scientists and engineers is a terrible idea.

"One thing that needs to be understood is that the need for more labor for some of these jobs is directly due to Roe v. Wade.  One million abortions a year for 32 years has distorted our labor supply."

That does not need to be understood, because it's not true.

"These jobs" are menial labor done tax free (for employer and employee) and almost always below minimum wage.  The employers have driven the value of the job down to stay competitive (and make sure you can get oranges for under a dollar), to the point that no American would take these jobs under these circumstances.  Any employer raising the quality of the job (to the point that Americans would be able to live off it) wouldn't be able to stay in business.  It's a vicious circle that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with the value of dirt cheap labor.

...policy on illegal immigrants is insane, both in terms of workability and human dignity. And, as President Pete Wilson could have told Bush, it's the crack cocaine of conservative politics: that first rush feels great, and then your life falls apart.

One of the things I genuinely thought a President Bush might accomplish is an end to years of garbage like this from Republican politicos. I was wrong.

total legal immigration and still permit far more scientists, engineers, and doctors into this country than we do now, simply by making skills and education the basis for admission to permanent residency rather than family reunification.  

No Adam, the people who illegally come here would, for large majority of cases, not reach the standards that we insist on for "other than lottery" (which is a stupid idea) immigration.

Uneducated, no background available to check, frequently sick with serious contagious diseases, ect.

Fines and procecution of employers does work, but there is not the political will to do so in the areas where the illegals are most heavily employed. (Willingness to procecute or even outrage is somewhat immaterial in areas that do not have illegals)

Supply and demand does not necessarily trump legal availability.

I could seriously want a new '69 camaro Z-28 (or a ~87 GEO Metro that got 60 MPG without being a hybrid) but the government will not permit production of vehicles that do not meet current vehicle standards.

While I am of the "send them back" opinion, I do regognize that there are other functional alternatives.

Once the inflow has stopped.

Nothing, absolutely nothing will work without that, although aggressively sending them back quickly comes closest.

Prevent the wholesale border crossings and the American people will prove to be willing to listen to alternatives in absorbing those already here.

Avoid that and anything esle is an amnesty dressed up in silks and defined as "other than pig".

The fact of the matter is that we've got immigration laws that have about as much grounding in common sense as the Volstead Act.

I agree with that, though probably for different reasons.

I've not really heard mucho a plan to enforce these laws, nor do I see much candor in exactly what it would cost in taxpayer money, loss of civil liberties, and in terms of economic displacement.

I honestly don't know.  I don't believe the economy would collapse, nor do I think that having a national ID card would be the equivalent of instituting fascism.  A wall on the Mexican border would not turn us into a dictatorship, either.  We shouldn't pretend there are no costs to doing nothing, or that we can absorb a limitless number of immigrants.

I fail to see that Roe vs Wade has any relevance here. After all, absent legal abortions, it's quite likely that many people would simply have used birth control or avoided promiscuous  behavior altogether so the number of births is unlikely to have been much higher. But more importantly given a reasonably free market in labor a shortage of workers is an impossibility: if workers are in short supply employers need only increase wages and they will find enough workers to fill their needs, since there are plenty of potential workers currently not in the job market who may be enticed into it is the rewards are sufficient (something we saw demonstrated in the 90s)

Re: Considering that America is suffering from a severe shortage of highly trained and educated native people in the sciences, cutting off our access to overseas scientists and engineers is a terrible idea.

Unless you prove this by showing very low unemployment rates and rising compensation in these fields, put me down as a skeptic that we are experiencing such shortages. This alarm has been sounded for the last 20 years at least, but apart from a few years in the late 90s (and then mostly in IT fields) science and engineering grads have found a fairly slack labor market for their skills. Indeed until quite recently their prospects since the year 2000 have been quiet dismal.

Some GOPers would like to be as "immigration-friendly" as Gray Davis. That would involved getting recalled in part because you signed the hugely unpopular driver's licenses for illegal aliens bill.

And, that would include questionable collaboration with Mexico to block the implementation of Proposition 187, which was passed handily and was even ahead among Latinos two months before the election.

Considering that America is suffering from a severe shortage of highly trained and educated native people in the sciences

Tell that to all the unemployable Ph.D.'s that are produced every year!

This is one of the biggest phony shibboleths that's perpetrated by the business community & the media.

The truth is, they don't want more "highly trained and educated native people" - they simply want cheaper ones.

If you want to argue that immigration fills in the lowest of the low-skill jobs that citizens won't perform, fine. But don't try to sell us the bill of good that there's a real "shortage of highly trained and educated native people in the sciences", because there is no evidence that that is the case. If anything, it's the opposite - we produce more than there are bankable jobs for.  

from the other thread:

BIG TAlk

I will believe it when I see it. I also want to see RICOH indictments against the politicians who run "SafeRefuge" cities. They are in an unlawful conspiracy to systematically disobey and obstruct Federal law.

....this has been just about the only issue I agree with the President on. He initially wanted a big amnesty program, but now it's based on securing the border and starting a guest worker program. One thing that is not going to happen is the sudden expulsion of all illegal workers, much as most of you would love that to be the case. Without the kind of reform the President proposes, illegal workers will always be tacitly approved for work in the U.S., by Democrats who wish to continue getting hispanic support, and by Republicans who wish to continue getting support from business. The problem with the current policy is that the requirement for an illegal alien to get work is that he or she must risk their lives getting here. It's disgustingly inhumane. We need the labor, so let's have the guest worker program. That way we'll have a much better handle on who is actually here...for security's sake.

...but you clearly don't work in an engineering field.  I do.  And I can promise you that there is absolutely no exaggeration when I say that my company employs a great many foreign engineers and lobbies hard to be able to employ more.  What's more they aren't building domestic plants when they don't have to in favor of plants overseas and one of the main reasons always cited is the lack of skilled workers here in the states.

"The truth is, they don't want more "highly trained and educated native people" - they simply want cheaper ones."

They want both certainly.

"If you want to argue that immigration fills in the lowest of the low-skill jobs that citizens won't perform, fine. But don't try to sell us the bill of good that there's a real "shortage of highly trained and educated native people in the sciences", because there is no evidence that that is the case."

really?

Nationally, engineering enrollment has been on a downslide since the mid-1980s, said Blake Cherrington, dean of the school of engineering at the University of Dayton.

Are you really sure there's just no evidence?

...because if you were, most people in the GOP in California will tell you that Prop. 187 was, electorally speaking, a disaster for the party.

The driver's license thing had virtually nothing to do with Davis's recall, according to exit polls. It was actually a great idea -- people in California drive, whether they're here illegally or not; do you bring them into the insurance system, or not? -- but it just didn't tweak people either way politically.

I think what Adam means -- and certainly what I mean -- is that the law of supply and demand does in fact tend to trump legality in many demonstrable ways.  The large illegal immigration problem we currently have is in fact evidence of underlying problems with our existing legal immigration system.  The supply of legal low-cost workers does not meet the demand for low-cost labor.

Those who are advocating policies to turn the demand for low-cost labor into high-cost labor, the demand for which could be met with existing legal labor pool, are, imho, mistaken about the effects of such policies.  This is even assuming that low-cost labor requirements can be turned into high-cost labor requirements willy-nilly by passing some laws.

Our nation's historical experience with other policies designed to fight obvious supply-demand problems (e.g., The Prohibition, War on Drugs, prostitution, anti-gambling laws, counterfeit Rolexes, peer-to-peer MP3 trading, etc.) suggests that such policies are largely ineffective and end up doing little beyond subsidizing the creation and sustenance of organized crime networks.

-TS

I can add that while it got Pete elected, it also drove CA totally into the blue state category.  The dems mobilized the hispanics against the GOP and they had easy proof that the Grand Ol Party was not open to their kind.

Actually 187 was supported by hispanics who had already acheived residency or citizenship.  But once the lines were drawn I doubt a hispanic could stand up for a republican in public and not be shouted down.

As far as identifying who is here legally and who isn't, an ID card would be a good idea.  To make it legal, it probably would have to  be a US ID card and of course the conservative lobby shot this down on arrival.  But the alternative has been for law enforcement officers to look the other way when dealing with a hispanic of unknown status.

Are you really sure there's just no evidence?

Rather than looking at the Supply side, you may want to look at the Demand side.

IOW, it's most likely that the number engineering students has been declining in line with a reduction in the number of engineering jobs.

I can add that while it got Pete elected, it also drove CA totally into the blue state category.  The dems mobilized the hispanics against the GOP and they had easy proof that the Grand Ol Party was not open to their kind.

Of course, the fact that the GOP refused to fight for the correct position, and instead knuckled under to hysterical Left Wing talking points may have has something to do with it.

The fact is, when you look at the winning percentages that Props. 187, 209 and 227 got, those were all winning issues.

But rather than fight for them, the GOP let the Left "frame" the debate. (And, in the case of 187, let a corrupt and activist Courts rule it illegal...)

Not that it matters - CA was trending to a 'Blue State' long before 187. But I guess it comforts some sleepy Republicans to believe that "CA would still be a 'Red State', if it weren't for that darn (evil) Prop. 187!..."

which is a close cousin of engineering. There's still a labor supply glut in this field. And meanwhile in physics I have a friend with a PhD living and working overseas who'd like to come home, but he can't find any jobs here.

Once again, can you show that wages are rising for engineers in your field? Can you show that unemployment is lower than the average? If so I will believe your assertions.

As for the claim that companies are building factories elsewhere because they can't find the engineers here, we all know the real reason is because they don't want to pay middle class salaries, but would rather have engineers who will work for elephant dung.

"Once again, can you show that wages are rising for engineers in your field?"

A survey released by the Ohio Society of Professional Engineers indicates the 2001 median income for an engineer in the Dayton area is $75,204. That compares to $70,600 in 2000.

Read the article, the jobs are still there but there are fewer native applicants.

...that California was trending blue long before Prop. 187. But the Republican party was healthy and vibrant at that point. I don't think any observer would say that about the California GOP now, and I don't think anyone in California Republican politics would argue with the contention that it's Prop. 187 that started us down the road to oblivian.

And god I'm tired of people crying "activist courts" everytime they disagree with a court decision. (There are activist judges; let's be more careful about using the term so that we can identify them when we need to.) The "activist courts" in California, including mostly Republican judges, that dumped Prop. 187 did it because enforcement would have created a public health and safety and human rights nightmare. There simply isn't a reasonable case to be made otherwise.

to the GOP was largely a function of demographics, which were changing there largely because of immigration.  Between 1990 and 2000, the population of California grew from 29,760,021 to 33,871,648 while the number of non-Hispanic whites, who are the backbone of the GOP electorate, and who Bush still (if only narrowly) won in 2004 in California, dropped from 17,029,126 (57.2%) to 15,816,790 (46.7%).  Furthermore, the trend for immigrants in California has been toward the left.  In Texas, where Republicans can count on 75% of the white vote, and around half the Hispanic vote, this isn't as big an issue yet, but in more moderate California, it was fatal.  

2000 Census, California, population characteristics:  

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=04000US06&am
p;-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-redoLog=fals
e

1990 Census, California, Hispanic Origin by race:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-state=dt&-conte
xt=dt&-ds_name=DEC_1990_STF1_&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=DEC_1990_STF
1_P010&-tree_id=100&-redoLog=true&-all_geo_types=N&-_caller
geoselect&-geo_id=04000US06&-geo_id=NBSP&-search_results=01000
US&-format&-_lang=en

From this: An exit poll... [in the California recall election] showed that 30 percent of California voters said they were somewhat or much more likely to vote against [California governor Gray] Davis because he signed the law [to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens]. Only 8 percent of voters were somewhat or much more likely to support him because of it.

It's useless because it provides people with an issue, then asks them whether it made them more or less likely to vote against a candidate. Open-ended questions are the only legitimate way to go about that kind of polling. It also doesn't measure the strength of the issue, i.e., how important it is.

Here are some interesting facts. There are 3 million unemployed American workers in these areas.

Dishwashers         12%

Food Prep             10%

Counter Attendants     10%

Grounds Workers     10%

Cooks             9%

Janitors        7%

Source: Current population Survey, 2004

Employers are more than willing to hire illegals.  

There are a many advantages to hiring illegals.  As an employer you don't have to pay health insurance or the normal taxes state, local and federal.  

This is the ultimate tax avoidance strategy

If your employee gets hurt on the job the employer will have little or no liability.  

You can pay below minimum wages and everyone is happy except the American's that are unemployed.  

What is most disturbing is the message we send.  It's ok to break the law and hire the illegal alien.

The spin from this administration is that American companies are not competitive or that they are helping other countries raise their standard of living.   We were told that free trade would create jobs and would give us trade surpluses with other countries.

As we know, the opposite was true.  We lost jobs and ran a higher trade deficit.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_jobs.pdf

The Republican's have recently reached a consensus to import 60,000 tech workers. Soon the middle class will start to feel the pinch and maybe then we will wake up.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5157588.html?tag=nl

fired up the immigration card and got himself elected one last time.  But there was true support for prop 187.  I was in close to what was happening in the schools, the immigrants were not assimulating, were provided with free goodies, and created hispanic blocks on the grounds that spelled trouble for the weak and unwary kids.  

What prop 187 did was cause the democrats to organize the hispanics into a more effective voting block.  As demographics increased their numbers and the left got them registered (motorvoter, no proof of address), the red state became history. Even Orange county, put in Sanchez, no mean feat because Orange Co was a republican stronghold.

The democrats did one more thing that was very effective in CA. They strengthened the hispanic block in the California Teachers Assn by supporting bilingual ed and paying spanish speaking teachers a bonus.  As schools became more influenced by the immigration demographics, the teachers became more strident that positions like prop 187 were anti-hispanic and the republicans folded their tent rather than be called a racist.  (The schools certainly had a right to ask for proof of residency and could have turned down illegals easily, but it was not in their self interest to do this and so instead of asking for papers, the hispanic kid got free lunches and free bus rides while white kids had to pay for the same thing.)