Redstate

I'm just afraid that the Democrats look out at  the 12-million illegal immigrants in the US, and see a big voting block. Why do I think that?

From:

Judge Temporarily Bars New Georgia 'Poll Tax'

October 19, 2005

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/10/judge_temporari.php

Washington, DC - Today, "a federal court temporarily barred Georgia from enforcing a new state law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls." The federal judge hearing the case in Georgia "agreed with critics who claimed the law amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax." [AP, 10/18/05]

The Georgia law would require voters to show special, government-issued photo IDs to vote. The new rule would have a particularly harmful impact on minority and elderly voters, as they are less likely to obtain or afford transportation to get such cards, and also less likely to afford the card's cost. [National Law Journal, 9/26/05] Rural, disabled, and poor voters, as well as students, would be negatively affected by the implementation of this new decree.

"This decision is an important boost for democracy in America," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "Voting is our most fundamental, basic right as American citizens, and you should not have to pay to exercise your right to vote.

"This ruling is a further indication that a national voter ID card is an unsound and unworkable proposition, as well as an infringement on every American's right to vote. The Democratic Party is committed to doing everything we can to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to participate in our democracy. Democrats believe we should be making it easier, not harder for Americans to exercise their fundamental right to vote."

Tancredo is having all his supporters do this exactly. Write your two senators and include these words:

1. support in its entirety the House of representatives border enforcement and control Act.
   
2.  reject Kennedy-McCain amnesty proposals.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

This can be just as important as actually voting. We must let them know what we want them to do!!!!!!!!!!

To the post at hand, but at the moment, I'm missing exactly how. Help?

This is your one warning to stop spamming our comments section.

Cheers.

the illegals in this country could claim to be those who are legal citizens and registered to vote.

Every year, people show up at the polls who are not registered to vote, or who have already voted somewhere else, and claim to be someone on the voter list who has not yet voted.

It's a stretch, but that's my best guess.

RWMN is right when he says that dems look at the 12 million illegals as a potential source of votes.

But he is kind of blog-jacking when he starts in about the photo id bill.

Which would be a great subject for a separate diary.

It still has nothing to do with the post at hand, even if it is true.

Or at least, if it does have something to do with the post at hand, I'm missing it. I'm open to that possibility.

Hispanic-American citizens, many in the US for over ten  generations or more (who I love) are politically split, and a very competitive voter demographic for Republicans and Democrats to fight over, BUT are non-citizen immigrants that vote illegally (and I'm sure quite a few do, just because it's so darn easy) politically split? Do illegal immigrants vote Republican as often as Democrat, when they do vote? I think maybe not. In some close states, that could be the margin, and it sounds like that is dawning on Hillary Clinton too.

...of people break a law, there may be something wrong with the law. Either it's failing to comport with reality, or it's a stalking horse for something unspoken.

You point out very correctly that there would be no reason for Mexicans to come here illegally if there were no demand for their labor. Then why aren't we significantly increasing our quotas for legal immigration or work permits from Mexico? To perhaps a million or more a year?

I have no reason to suppose that the objections come from cultural xenophobia. Americans are better than that. I have considerable reason to believe (from direct experience in my own neighborhood) that some illegals are disruptive, essentially homeless, alcoholic, belligerent and scary. And in NYC, the police won't go near them because they would be accused of racism. But these true undesirables are probably a small proportion of the total illegal population.

The other objection is that illegals are taking jobs away from Americans. Why don't Americans compete harder for the available work then? This is a red herring.

Yet another problem is capital flight. Remittances from illegals in America seem to amount to perhaps $17 billion a year right now, making them Mexico's second-largest source of foreign capital after oil exports. But in a $10 trillion economy, it's basically part of the noise background for us.

It's hard for me to get worked up over the proposition that illegals are a problem simply because they're breaking our laws. As much as I respect law and order, the numbers are telling me that the laws may be the problem, not the lawbreakers.

I'm not convinced about a wall because it does nothing about the illegals who are already here. We need to understand exactly why we don't want them here. If we decide that they really are unwanted, then let's make employers liable in case they hire them. That will be costly and intrusive but at least it can be enforced through existing regulatory structures without requiring massive police activity. If we decide they aren't unwanted, then let's welcome them, and in fact import more of them.

why the immigration issue has to be so complicated.  The libertarianesque crowd has seized upon it as an easily grasped 2x4 with which to whack President Bush and the Republicans.  The Democrats have essentially joined arms with them in a rather schizophrenic knee-jerk fit of opportunism.

The issue really boils down to simple terms.  There are far too many illegals, with roots too painfully embedded in this country to even consider the storm-trooper approach. Immigrant criminals and anarchists, excepted... storm-troop them right on out of here.  

The solution rests in the idea of gaining control of the process.  Make the process user-friendly for would-be immigrants; guest and permanent flavors alike.

Control the borders. If that takes a fence, then so be it. I don't care how "insensitive" such a concept is. Unlike barriers we have seen in other parts of the world and history, ours would be purposed to keep people Out, as opposed to keeping our people In.  Big difference.

Phil

You're right that there is a demand for cheap labor.  If enforcement (and thus the costs of failing to comply with the law) is low, then it rarely becomes smart for a strictly profit-oriented businessman to hire Americans over illegal aliens.

However, this is a case where supply has created the demand twice over.  The illegals came and the businesses started giving them jobs, and so they created more jobs which drew more illegals here.

This is only a thorny political situation because it cuts across the traditional fault lines.  We're used to things being left/right and Republican/Democrat but this issue takes the far left and unites it with various businessmen ('What's good for my business is good for business' Republicans) and libertarians ('Government has no right to control international migration' people).  Plus you get some free traders among both ('Freely migrating services will be as beneficial to us as freely migrating goods; this is no different from buying software from India').

I am open to being convinced that our society could be harmed by cutting off the illegal third-world labor supply.  I'm not convinced of it yet; in fact I currently think we'd be helped if we ended illegal immigration, and replaced the cheap illegal labor with a combination of cheap youth labor (bringing youth unemployment down to the level of the rest of society) and technical innovation (creating new business opportunities that create a wide range of jobs from janitors to managers to engineers).

That's the first reason I don't want them here.  The second reason is the Sonny Bono doctrine: It's illegal, isn't it?   If the law is wrong, we change the law, we don't ignore it.

The third reason is that I think it's a very bad filter to put on the immigrants that do come here.  Importing cheap labor through illegal immigration ensures the labor we get will not be made up of law-abiding, honest, hardworking people who have any ties to our country.  No, we'll get individuals live a lightly-rooted life, still feel bound and loyal to Mexico, and feel no love for our country or society.

Culture never enters into the picture, though I do think a side-effect of ending illegal immigration would be an increase in the speaking of English, because the immigrants here would be people who chose to hop through the hoops to come here, and would feel some commitment to this country and its dominant culture.

And as for your proposed solution, I'm in total agreement.  Aggressive enforcement of our illegal alien labor laws is the #1 portion of my personal illegal immigration plan.  These are my four main points, in order of priority:

• Enforce the immigration laws
  
• Swiftly deport everyone caught by immigration or arrested by the police
  
• Close most government services to illegals
  
• Build a security fence and man it

And, note that my fourth point is something I want more to solve the nuclear terrorism issue, than the illegal alien issue.  It helps both, though, I think.

I certainly agree with you that at the moment the legal immigration process is very badly managed and horribly slow. When I first moved to the US, both my parents were on work visas and the processing delays were simply horrible - sometimes by the time you get your visa approved, the deadline date to re-apply for next year is already at you.

I am not sure what the solution is. Increasing the quotas for work visas would lead to more educated and skilled foreign labor - employers are only willing to spend the extra money if the employee is of high enough value. I am also pretty sure that an employer can only apply for a work-visa for a future employee on the condition that no American citizen of better qualification has applied to the position.

That being said, no offense to any Mexican immigrants, I am not sure that increasing the quota would have a big impact on the immigration that comes from south of the border. Employers who are looking for not-so-skilled labor would be more inclined to look for workers in the spots where illegal immigrants hang out, then to accept applications from people living abroad and go through the entire painstaking process.

or at least any one with any brains, is advocating sending storm troopers door to door, but there are other approaches. I've long advocated, though I won't claim credit for thinking of it first, putting some teeth into a law against employing anyone without proper papers. If the jobs dry up the illegals will deport themselves. When they get home they should be allowed to apply for reentry on the same footing as someone who's never been here.

First off, libertarians aren't whacking the President here.  The President's on their side, firmly committed to opening the borders to 'guest workers.'

Second, it's not just the libertarians who are on his side.  Many Chambers of Commerce are with him, on the doctrine that 'what's good for my business is good for business.'  There are also free traders among them, who believe that the free trade in services creates prosperity for us just as the free trade in goods does.

That's why it's so tough.  It takes three factions often sympathetic to Republicans, and unites them with the open borders far left on a major policy.

The most basic responsibility of the government is to provide for the national defense... and the most basic component of that is to control our borders and determine who is allowed to enter and who is not. When the government abandons this responsibility, while at the same time spending unimaginable sums of money performing functions it has no business performing, it is understandable why people get worked up about it.

I've always felt that when millions...

...of people break a law, there may be something wrong with the law...

It's hard for me to get worked up over the proposition that illegals are a problem simply because they're breaking our laws. As much as I respect law and order, the numbers are telling me that the laws may be the problem, not the lawbreakers.

Just because many people do not follow the law does not necessarily mean that there is something wrong with it. In this case it just means the law isn't being enforced. Just about any law that is not adequately enforced will be violated en masse. I never drive the speed limit (road conditions permitting). I know how exactly many mph I can get away with over the limit without attracting any response from the police. If it was enforced down to the posted limit you can be sure I would drive the limit.

I'm not convinced about a wall because it does nothing about the illegals who are already here.

The wall doesn't need to do anything about the illegals who are already here. The function of the wall is to control the border. More illegals come in every day. If we do another amnesty for those already here (which will eventually happen... this is inevitable) that will encourage more to come. We need to fix the border before we do that.

1. Build a Tough Fense so Nobody Else Can Sneak In.  (Satisfies Boarder Enforcement Rs, Those of us with common sense, The President.)
   
2. Have a Non-Citizenship Guest Worker Program.  (Satisfies free traders, libertarians, Economic Gurus ala Kudlow, The President.)

(Perhaps after two 6-year stints one can start a naturalization process, let the Senate figure this out.)

This compromise will solve all our problems.

Your #2 won't satisfy plenty of us without some important provisions:

1. All current illegals must be barred
   
2. It can't lead to permanency, else it's not a 'guest' worker program at all.
   
3. It can't be that long, you can't be somewhere 6 years without growing roots
   
4. You find a way to deal with their children being an anchor
   
5. You find a DHS that has the backbone to expel people who overstay.

2nd Generationers always assimilate very fast, and Hispanics are becoming quintessential Americans.  Linda Chavez wrote an excellent article about this that mentions above other things how they are the most entrepreneurial segment of our society. [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/chavez1.asp]

Now let me pontificate about compromise:

Ever since that glorious night in 2004, when John Edwards came out like a baby and said he wouldn't concede the election, certain slivers of the GOP have been sabotaging my Great President from every corner.  We had RINO defection (and socialcon disinterest) in changing social security.  We had environmentalist wacko-types sabotages Bush on ANWR.  We had status quo types not get on the ball on tax reform.  Now a group of neo-Buchananites wants to sabotage the President's campaign promise on how he would reform immigration: tougher boarder enforcement + a guest worker program.  

I have enthusiastically supported everything (except Harriet Meiers) Bush has ever done or stated as a goal for this country.  Little slivers of the GOP, combined with Democrats, have continued to defeat us.  I don't like it one bit.

I don't understand how some people who call themselves conservative Republicans find it so easy to disagree with President Bush and Larry Kudlow.

then plenty of immigrants will not both applying for it at the first place.

The only way to deal with the child issue is to change the law make it so that not everyone born on our territory is given US citizenship.

If we pretend to have a guest worker program, but let any guest worker who has an American citizen for a child stay permanently, then the guest in guest worker goes away.

As for your demands for total submission for the President, I don't understand how someone who calls himself a conservative Republican can expand Medicare, attempt to federalize local schools, sign the BCRA, and say somehing like 'when somebody hurts, government has got to move.'

If a guest worker program is to provide the same opportunities for permanency as any other immigration, then why have a separate program at all?

I have enthusiastically supported everything (except Harriet Meiers) Bush has ever done or stated as a goal for this country.

You supported Medicare prescription drugs? CFR? The out of control spending? He's done a few things very well. A few things very poorly. Immigration goes in the latter column. He is no different from Bill Clinton on immigration.

Why should people on a guest worker program be put on a list for citizenship ahead of people who are currently on the list for citizenship via the normal LEGAL WAY??

Why should current law not be enforced? Right now if you are here illegally you are ineligible for citizenship automatically for three years. It's also illegal to hire illegals. So why are these laws uninformed?

Get off your butts and write your two senators like Tancredo suggests.

I can't believe people even think about Dubai Ports World, or any other security issue, when we literally have people streaming undocumented into the country. We need to actually have a border. Period. And no more amnesty-- we did that already, and every time we do we provide an incentive and reward to those who break our laws.

Then, we can increase legal immigration. I would love to have millions of LEGAL hispanics coming in to this country. Legal immigrants require an Affidavit of Support, as in a guarantee they won't go on the dole. Illegals, at least here in Oregon, are actively sought out to consume public services. As a person involved in a legal immigration proceeding for my wife-- THAT CHAFES.

Last, we need farmers to quit claiming there are jobs people won't do, so they need migrant workers. There are jobs they don't pay enough to get legal workers, yes. This is the stalest line ever. It's about as intelligent as the South clinging to slavery because no one else would do the work. It's pathetic and completely contrary to basic economics. If fruit needs to cost more to get it harvested, big wow. Let's deal in economic reality.

of the Hispanics I work with are against further illegal immigration, even if their parents or other relatives came here illegaly. They worry that wages are depressed in areas with high illegal populations. Most of them vote Democrat except in the last two elections they voted for Bush, but then again this is Texas.

1. If Cheap labor is held out as the be all and end all of economic practice then why arn't nations like Mexico more prosperous?
   
2. If all we care about is cheap labor then why bother with Mexico at all, we could import endless amounts of even cheaper labor from Zaire, Myanmar, and Indonesia.
   
3. If we turn a blind eye to Mexican illegal immigration how is that fair to those who wish to immigrate from other countries? Many of these people have good educations and the kind of skills we desperatly need but they have to comport to a legal system with long waiting lines.

there is no way to force people out who are already here, but you could put pressure on hiring illegals while at the same time expanding Legal immigration so that everyone is processed (so little attention is paid to the exportation of criminals, and disease , which come from lack of enforcement).

   Previous waves of immigration were followed by cooling off periods to allow assimilation. As it is now, those of us living in the Border states are having to asimilate to Mexican culture. this is not an overstatement. I am taking Spainish lessons because I will lose my job if I don't learn Spainish.  Its good to be bilingual, its not good to be forced into it.

1. Who said cheap labor is the be all and end all of anything? The point of this discussion is what to do with all illegals who are here, and do we actually want them here, and if not, then why not? And your (beside the point) question is easy to answer anyway: Mexico is less prosperous than we are because they don't use capital as productively, efficiently or effectively as we do. A given unit of labor is far more economically generative if deployed in the US rather than in Mexico.
   
2. We tried that once. It darn near tore the country to pieces. We had to kill 600,000 people fighting a civil war to end it, and the echoes of it are with us to this day. The Mexicans come here because they want to come here. Again, look closely at your own thoughts and tell me why do you want them here, or why do you not want them here?
   
3. Why indeed should we not let them in? Is it because there is a natural limit to the amount of in-migration that we can tolerate before we become overentended? How and why does that happen? Let's ask and understand these questions. Don't forget that in addition to consuming services, people also generate work and productivity. A well-motivated person full of youthful energy and a desire to create a better life for himself is worth the same as an awful lot of capital.

...has nothing to do with the millions of illegals who are currently here. Let's grant them amnesty and green cards and let them get on with their lives. But we have a national-defense interest in preventing any future inflows, because of the terrorism and other social diseases that they may carry with them. Have I understood you?

ago, and those fears aren't unfounded.

In areas that have high concentration of illegal immigrants the wages for that area are deppressed in almost all areas of employment.  So illegal immigration does hurt legal immigrants.

...for more foreigners to come in, in contrast to the people who would close our borders. You just want to make sure we accept primarily the high-quality ones. (Your quality-metric appears to be skills.) Keep in mind that the presence of additional people in the US is what creates market and demand for products and services in the first place. That's the real reason businesspeople want more immigration. Simply getting access to "cheap labor" is nothing like the whole picture. As I said in response to another comment, a person from Mexico is far more productive living in the US than he is back in Mexico. Why shouldn't we get the benefit of that productivity, and also of the opportunity to provide additional work that that person's productivity generates?

best way to handle immigration is:

1.  Make legal immigration easier for those who want to come here and work.  Part of the reason so many come sneaking over the border, is the proccessis currently long, expensive, and limited.

I am unconvinced that we can't raise the number of legal immigrants we permit in each year.  

2.  Have a zero tolerance policy towards legal immigration.  If you are caught here illegally, you are deported period.  I
   
3.  We have to hold businesses that hire illegals accountable.  We need to make the consequences painful enough that they only hire documented workers.

Half the problem right now, is we have back door immigration, because our legal immigration laws I think are unrealistic.  And we don't even really try to do #2 or #3.  We have in effect made illegal immigration the easy, and mostly risk free way of immigrating, we need to flip that so legal immigration is the prefferred method, and illegal immigration isn't worth the risk for the immigrant or the business that hires them.

...which is to say, it will not happen.

Moe

PS: I know that various and sundry people disagree with me on the scope and extent of the 14th Amendment on this issue.  Until said objectors include five sitting Supreme Court justices (or 51/67 sitting Senators [depending on veto] willing to invoke Article III), said disagreement is, frankly, irrelevant.

PPS: Build a fence. Send illegals back when we catch them breaking our laws.  Create an immigration quota that reflects economic reality.  And either stamp out bilingualism or make everybody learn Spanish.

I do have a question.  Is the "born in US=citizen" a constitutional or legislative condition?

I actually think you have a good point about guest worker programs not being all that "guest worker" if they are able to stay, because their children are citizens.

Just wondering if this is something that can be done with legislation, or if it takes consitutional amendment to do.

your replies to be Pollyannish. You didnt even begin to answer my third point. I give you this, you rightfully say we have to decide (as a society) what we want.

  My answer is easy, Unlimited immigration of low educated, low skilled labor is not a positve for this country. Yes they might have youthful energy, so do most criminals and terrorists. Sure they consume goods and services, includeing expensive public services. They also ship a lot of wealth out of the country.

  We need to concentrate on Legal immigration of people who have been processed, and who might have the kind of skills most needed in our high tech society. I would not be against increasing legal immigration, nothing is written in stone.

1. You suggest that we cut off foreign labor and replace it with youth labor. We could do that today if younger Americans were willing to compete in these markets. They're not. If we kick out the illegals, the work simply won't get done, and American young people would be just as idle as they are now (by the way, I don't concede that they idle are to any great degree). The market for illegal labor is just as free (more free actually) than the non-black market, and prices for illegal labor are probably quite correct. "Cheap labor" isn't cheap because you don't pay it very much. Cheap labor is cheap because it's relatively unproductive. That's not going to change if it's performed by illegals or young Americans. Additionally, if you're thinking that it's wrong to lower labor costs by circumventing labor regulations like OSHA and the minimum-wage laws: doesn't the fact that there is a huge market for such unregulated labor tell you that there is something wrong with the regulations?
   
2. Changing the law isn't ignoring it. That's exactly what I believe we should take a very close look at doing. If we all decide as a society that we don't want the Mexican illegal presence, then let's ask why not, agree on the reasons, and take appropriate action. We might decide we actually should have a lot more Mexican (or other) immigration, in which case let's make it happen legally and in a streamlined way. That's why I asked my questions in the first place.
   
3. Now this is an interesting point. By tolerating illegal immigration, we're acceding to the stark economic reality that additional people want to come here, and that we have work for them to do. But we are allowing them to decide who should be here, rather than deciding for ourselves. I have several reservations about your point, however. First, I think it's not a forgone conclusion that if we welcomed the Mexicans with open arms, they would retain their close patriotic ties to the mother country and refuse to assimilate culturally. Perhaps they only do so today because they are not welcomed as full Americans here. And second, if you try to change or rationalize immigration filters in any significant way, you're talking about government action. Today, our government applies politically-negotiated quotas from each emigrant nation, and applies preferences based not on skills or education but rather on whether a given applicant already has family living here. It's a crappy way to select immigrants, but you'll have an impossible time getting Congress to change this law. Other countries (like Canada) already strongly prefer people with particular skills and education. They're a lot smarter about this than we are. But I just don't trust our government to ever get anything right, so in a funny way I'm inclined to think that the black market is actually doing a more effective job of selecting immigrants who really want to be here than Congress ever could.

To read the Supreme Court case limiting Congress's plenary authority in this. Otherwise, why would we need five Supreme Court justices to agree?

No need to give the U.S. Reporter citation. Just the case name will do.

I think the 14th grants citizenship to the kids, others say that interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is silly because it makes the phrase redundant.

While the birthright citizenship of the children of illegals i sclearly not a legal impediment to deporting guest workers who overstay, I think it's a politically infeasible thing to do.

...in the post itself.  51/67 invoking that clause, remember?

We face a stark reality: there are a lot of people who want to be here, and there is work for them to do. It takes Pollyanna to suppose that we can keep them out. You wouldn't try to hold back a tidal wave.

I don't know whether we want more Mexican immigration or not. I'm only asking questions, and trying to flush everyone's unspoken objections into the open so we can decide together whether they make sense.

Your objection seems to be that the quality of people who are coming in is low. But there are low-grade individuals in any population. Apart from the rotten eggs that I have to step around in my own neighborhood, I haven't seen that illegal Mexican workers on the whole are any less disciplined or willing to work hard than anyone else. I rather think they are more so. We haven't given them any reason to culturally assimilate. If we welcomed them and gave them a reason to assimilate, I think they would. Maybe I'm channelling Pollyanna again. As far as changing the immigration filters so we attract more skillful and educated immigrants, see my #35 upthread.

I thought you mistyped and meant Article VI.

1. You say our youth aren't willing to do the work.   Do you mean unwilling to do the work at any wage, or just at the wages and conditions that third-world illegals tolerate?

Unless you doubt the BLS statistics*, we know the youth want work of some sort, because youth unemployment is high, and unemployment rates only count those who are looking for work.

How can you be sure that in the absence of millions of illegal aliens, the natural market forces wouldn't find the wage that strikes the right between unemployed youth and American business in wages and flexibility?

2. Fair enough, though I would suggest that a guest worker proposal that allows current illegals to participate amounts to ignoring the problem.  I don't know if you've supported such a plan, but some people have.

3. You're right, we can't be sure what the attitudes of a few million poor Mexican legal immigrants would be with respect to the United States.

Just a thought: we could probably ensure that we get good results, by making the burden of legal immigration onerous enough on poor foreigners, that the only people willing to endure it are those who wish to come here permanently.

That way we don't get the people who just want to come here, send money home for a decade, then go back home for good.  I suspect that kind of person is more likely to be a Mexican living in America, than an American from Mexico.

You might say: Don't we already have that?  Yeah, but in practice now it's irrelevant becuase our border is insecure, and our laws against hiring illegals go unenforced.

* The Bureau of Labor Statistics ( http://www.bls.gov/ ) says that the unemployment rate for people ages 16-19 was 15.4% in February, vs 4.2% for men over 20 and 4.3% for women over 20.

Clearly we could raise the rates of legal immigration, but until we enforce the current rates, we have no way of knowing whether we *need* to raise them.

I even think we all could agree to raise the rates, if everyone made a good-faith effort to follow the current laws, and the result was a spike in inflation.

I'm hardly a constitutional law scholar, after all.  :)

suggestions for anything to work.  You have to work from all three ends (legal immigration, enforcement of illegal immigration for both the immigrant and employers) in order for any policy to work, you can't let one area slide, or we end up in the same boat.

The goal I think for most people (sometimes I wonder about the uber lefty "open borders" types) is to end illegal immigration.  Illegal immigration isn't safe or a good thing.

I do think we should raise legal immigration rates, but just raising legal immigration rates, without enforcing laws with regard to illegal immigration doesn't do any good.

Secure the border.

Do it now.  Build the fence if thats the best fast approach (and it has worked in other areas).

Once the fence building is under way then begin with immigration reform.

I'm glad you didn't just stick your toe in the immigration waters, but jumped in feet first.

You are totally correct that we need to simultaneously deal with (1) tougher enforcement, (2) reform the immigration process, and (3) come to terms with the immigrants who are already here.

I would add two thoughts on details for your #1 and #3.  

Concerning enforcement, part of the solution should be a better way for employers to verify the status of their workers.  Right now, employers are relying on forged documents.  Some sort of "instant check" database would simultaneously make it easier for the employer to ensure he is hiring a legal worker, and also easier to clamp down on employers who don't follow the rules.  (Currently employers have a defense that they checked the person's ID, and didn't know it was forged.)

Concerning dealing with those already here, we need to make their continued stay here conditional on them making substantial progress learning English.  As long as they come into the legal framework and are assimilating (and English proficiency is the easiest measure of that), I have no problem letting them stay.

I think that anything that comes out of congress must include building the fence to stem the tide of immigrants.  It has cut down on the problems in the areas where they have built it.

From there, I would propose a much simpler program then what is being talked about.  Forget a fancy guest worker program, simply put, add more immigrant work visas and have the following requirements:

Anyone caught illegally in the US will be deported and must wait five years to get back in.

No automatic citizenship just because you are born here.  Citizens are the children of citizens, period.

Children of citizens, or children of citizens and permanent (legal) residents?

. . . between a guest worker program and immigrant work visas.  (No snark intended, I really don't know.)  There are two reasons I support some sort of temporary status (as opposed to permanent status) for workers:  (1) there are some jobs that are truly temporary (like harvesting certain crops), and (2) I want a relatively easy way to make people leave if they don't learn English.

As to the fence, I have no problem with building it.  But we need to do it simulataneously with the other solutions (as Leon outlined above).  Three reasons why:  (1) it makes sense from a policy point of view to simultaneously use carrots and sticks, (2) it makes sense from a political point of view, since Hispanics are the natural allies of Republicans (hard work, conservative values, strong religious convictions), and a carrot/stick approach is the best way to win them over to our side, and (3) compromise is the best way to get an effective program in place quickly.

I doubt very much that Americans have the fortitude to do what would be necessary to deport all the illegal aliens.  I myself could not stomach breaking up families, destroying businesses, nor guarantee that I could bear the amount of money necessary to accomplish the task or the type of enforcement needed for the task.

I think we must accept the facts and learn how to integrate those already here with a long term program that promotes documentation and citizenship, and short term programs to stop the illegal influx with physical barriers and real enforcement.

I would suggest the short term program to be reminiscent of the depression era work programs and provide a citizenship short-cut to any of those that would sign-up for a tour on building the "border-wall".  The long term program would include stiffer penalties to companies that hire illegals, make it increasingly difficult to access educational, medical, and social services without documentation, and have a large advertising budget welcoming new "Americans".  The advertising campaign would stress the historical importance of immigrants and the melting pot, stress integration and English skills, and sell the idea that citizenship and the rights, priviledges, and duties that are included should be the goal of all immigrants.

You can shoot holes in any plan, but it seems that this might very well become the issue that makes or breaks the GOP and they are once again rapidly letting the Dems set the stage they will have to perform on.  I say pick a plan that does the least harm to all involved regardless of their classification, run on it, and implement it.

First, it's not "leftist" to support immigration reform, or to fail to see the wisdom of placing our faith in a giant wall.  

Second:

the Sensenbrenner proposal, or something like it, should be passed.

Making illegal immigration a felony will, in effect, make it impossible for every illegal immigrant currently in country to ever legalize their status.  Consider the implications of creating a huge (and permanent) criminal underclass based on one's presence in country (Hispanic voters have).  If, after reflection, you still think Sensenbrenner makes sense, then make the political calculation:  passing Sensenbrenner's proposal will not only alienate Wall Street and your libertarian bretheren; it will end the Republican party's courtship with Hispanic voters.

Third, I support the renewed enforcement of existing laws and the Bush administration's proposal to make it easier to employers to determine a worker's immigration status.  No one should be granted amnesty for their crime.

Finally, however, the serious way to address immigration is to put into place a system whereby folks who want to work can work, while encouraging those who plan to make their lives in this country to become citizens of this country.  Such a "serious way" looks much like Bush's proposal, which is to increase the number of green cards and institute a temporary worker's permit.*

von

*I am willing to consider an alternative, floated by Samuelson:  impose a bill like Sensenbrenner's, but immediately legalize the status of every individual currently in country at the time of the bill's passage.  (I do have concerns, however, about the short-term effects of such a proposal.)

Finally, however, the serious way to address immigration is to put into place a system whereby folks who want to work can work, while encouraging those who plan to make their lives in this country to become citizens of this country.  Such a "serious way" looks much like Bush's proposal, which is to increase the number of green cards and institute a temporary worker's permit.*

I hasten to add that Bush's proposal also involves construting new walls, improving enforcement, ending the "catch-and-release" policy on enforcement, and penalizing businesses who fail to take advantage of the new (terribly-named) "gold card."  Enforcement has to be a component of this.

....didn't you already get your one warning to stop this?

Having been in high school in South Texas in the late 40's and early 50's I have some experience with permanent and temporary residents of Mexican heritage.  About 35% percent of my friends spoke Spanish at home.  Another 35% spoke some variety of Czechoslovakian at home.  There were small percentages  that spoke either Danish or Swedish.  There were a very few of us "Heinz 57 Variety" Americans with mixed mongrel backgrounds.

Some hoary head obsevations:

Given the variance of opportunity in Mexico and that of the US, my back would continually be so "wet" it would never dry up.

My 'Latino' (then, Mexican was not a pejorative) friends were from fine strong families with a strong Catholic faith.  Something that makes them no quite so attractive to pro-abortion Democrats.  They were also studious workers, something else that make not make them attractive to Democrats.  Living in a small town of 6,000, I have frequently seen 10,000  latinos in town to buy groceries on a weekend.  They had been in the local fields picking cotton all week under a bracero program that worked quite well.  Most of them went from South Texas picking cotton, picking vegetables and fruit all the way up into the Dakotas, Oregon, and Washington.  Grocery stores would restock from the walls three times on Saturday and Sunday.  Fights were rare.  This all changed in the mid 1950's for good capitalist reasons when the Mexican braceros priced themselves out of the market and it became more efficient and acceptable for cotton to be machine picked.

Whatever the mechanism, we do need to have some method to insure that voters in US elections are US citizens.  Allowing everone to vote who comes to the polls invites anarchy.  I know that several California cities allow non-citizens (read Mexicans) to vote in local elections.  There should not be that option in state and federal elections.  Of course, the liberals (read 'mostly Democrats') will yell.  They have been yelling in Alabama for years because residents of cemetaries (read 'dead people')can no longer vote. It also limits their ability to vote "early and often" in the same election.

Given the laziness and lethargy of most Americans, I don't see many willing to pay the prices to have US citizens to wash their dishes or prepare their food in a restaurant, or do their difficult and dirty yard work, or build their house.  Welcome to the land of unions and pampered teenagers.  Having been in the restaurant business, I can assure you it is difficult to motivate a teen to work for a salary that is equal to or less than what he is already getting in a weekly allowance, besides being unreliable.  In my case, it bankrupted my business.

I don't know the answer.  I don't think a border wall is a very appealing choice.  Maybe a green card system for temporaty work leading to citizenship will.  I suspect there are many who just like to work here but retain their cultural identity.  I think that America, properly, is all about assimilation into the culture.  Cultural identity may remain, but the new culture is uniquely "American".  This is what other cultural groups have done in the immigration of the 10's, 20's and 30's.

Waving a wand over a major population group that makes them instant felons seems to me to not be a proper American approach

Yes, you can shoot holes in any plan, but it'd be nice if you'd actually try to shoot holes in plans that people are actually offering, rather than made-up ones that you find easy to shoot holes in.

Specifically, please, please, please stop setting up that straw man of mass deportation.  Nobody is calling for that and it only hurts your cause when you keep bringing it up as a way of supporting your own radical short-cut plan by contrast.,

We have more options available to us than "Give all illegals a path to legality," and "Conduct Operation Wetback II."  There are other ways about it.

If we merely make it impossible for these people to get work, with plenty of advance notice as the new, strict enforcement regimes come online, they'll pack up and leave on their own.  That's their path to legality that has always existed: get out and start the same process of immigration that *honest* people have already been participating in.

And don't say they can't or don't leave.  Plenty of illegals leave after N years anyway; ask Western Union how many are sending money at regular intervals in preparation for the later return.

Regardless of which side one is on concerning immigration, citing unemployment statistics for people 16-19 years old is an aberration.

Most people 16 or 17 years old are still in high school, and only seek temporary employment in summer or after-school jobs, and are still living with their parents, so that failing to find a job is no great loss for most of them.

Among 18-19 years old, a greater proportion of them have decided to quit school and get a full-time, so that being unemployed would be a serious problem, especially if they no longer lived with their parents.

Any serious discussion about youth unemployment should distinguish between high-school and college-age young people. It makes a huge difference!

Looking for work is looking for work.  Right now, today, in America, 15% of those American youth are actively seeking to exchange their labor for pay, but cannot find a willing employer.

These are the Americans that used to do the work that illegals are now doing.  Mowing lawns, dishwashing, mopping floors, making deliveries, bagging groceries: these are all traditional jobs for high school and college students.  No more, though.

And you're right, being 18 or 19 and unemployed would be a serious problem.  I believe some people call it 'the plight of the urban minority.'

You and I are very close in our solutions, yet you are just more inflammatory with your presentation.  

Your suggestions:

Enforce the immigration laws

Swiftly deport everyone caught by immigration or arrested by the police

Close most government services to illegals

Build a security fence and man it

If you will read my suggestions closely Neil, they are almost identical (except for the clever wall building scheme).  The real difference is my suggestion on enforcement and restriction of services is practical because of its tone of moderation, where as yours can be more easily construed by the left as the jack-booted thug routine.  

If we clamp down on the border as the first step, we can take our time and solve the exisiting illegals problem in a manner that benefits all.  

Your plan just gives ammo to the left.  Plug the leak and the problem will not worsen, start bailing afterwards.  I fear your type of rhetoric will do nothing more than allow the leak to become worse while the Dem and Rep plumbers slap each other senseless with pipe wrenches.

Where has ANYONE here, or any Republican elected official or candidate, called for the rouding up of illegals and breaking up of families, as you portrayed in your original comment?

There are people here on Red State who can support a guest worker proposal without resorting to such cheap tactics as misrepresenting the opposition in that way.  I hope you'll become one of them, because our side becomes a LOT stronger when we get good, healthy debate going that is strong in facts and logic.

easily construed by the left as the jack-booted thug routine.

The problem is not in the solutions, you and I aleady know what type of solutions are needed.  The fight that has to be fought is between conservatives and liberals.  Who can present a plan that will be supported by the public? And then embraced by what hopefully will remain the majority party.  

If you want this settled in a way that will make both you and me happy, then we better start of a way to make the plan invulnerable to the left and their smear campaigns.  LOL, instead of Redstate proof.

I have to admit, I don't like the Sensenbrenner proposal, so I may be biased.

But there is a rational counter.  It's to point out that some laws eventually don't work - or whose enforcement would require the use of tactics that never would fly with the American people.  The Volstead Act was one such law.  We're still paying the price for it in a way.

The fact is, the President has come up with such a compromise - there is no amnesty.  Those who are here illegally will pay a penalty - it is just not the penalty that Malkin and Tancredo want.  And that is something that I will make no bones about.  When people call the plan an amnesty, they are playing fast and loose with the term - and, in my opinion, misleading people about it.

I'll admit, I have my suspicions about what is going on with some of the folks who are hard-liners on this issue - and that some people have been less than careful about who they choose to associate with on this issue, particularly Michelle Malkin.  She has cited Lawrence Auster and Steve Sailer to bolster her arguments on immigration. Both Sailer and Auster have been called out - and by two of the founders of Redstate.com (tacitus and Ben Domenech), no less.  Both had a great term I'd like to use - Evilcons.

She also seems to not mind that someone on her immigration blog cited Jared Taylor last month, either.  Taylor has some interesting friends, I might add.  Both Sailer and Taylor have stuff run on VDARE, a site she has regularly promoted on her blog (and it's on her blogroll).

At some point, Michelle's tolerance of the  Evilcons should be noted.  I'm just calling this as I see it.

horrible grammar but in a hurry here.

Let's start here:

Given that closing our port terminals to foreign operator firms has been received well by the public, can we not leverage that to build a fence?

And can't we use the left's hatred for corporations as leverage to sell strict enforcement of our laws against hiring illegals?  "American corporations cheat the system by breaking the law and hiring exploited members of a permanent underclass, in order to avoid paying a living wage to honest American workers."

Do you think that would work?

I can't speak for kyle8 but i seriously doubt he was talking about slavery. I am sure that people in Africa and other continents would want to come here just as much as those from Mexico. Unfortunately for them Mexico has the advantage of proximity.

This, then, touches on a main reason for my objection to illegal immigration. There are limitations on how many people can come to the US from any country. While I cant show you proof, i truly believe that the legal limits are probably much more restricted because of the flood of illegals. On a global scale it is inherently unfair as a matter of equal opportunity for all who want to come here. Take into consideration that the average wage in mexico is about $6000 a year and it is about $600 in Sudan, it makes this imbalance even greater (if we are talking about fairness).

One other point, do you know anyone who has married a Canadian or any other foreigner who is truly trying to live here legally? The hoops they have to jump through are ridiculous. If you want to live here you have to stay for three years uninterrupted without leaving the country. A friend of mine was not able to go back to his grandfathers funeral because it would have nullfied his time here. Had he slipped back and forth through the "hole in the fence" he would have gotten a pat on the back by the democratic half of Congress.

Illegal immigration is a slap in the face to all of those trying to do the right thing.

While I agree with what you say about the obvious reasons we shouldnt do a wholesale rounding up of people and sending them away, I would disagree that if we got rid of foreigners the work would not get done. If there is a demand, a way will be found to get it done. yes in the short term it may make products a bit more expensive but it would probably also spur invention to fulfill a need that currently doesnt exist. It is just a matter of whether those who are for sending the illegals back are willing to incur a higher cost of living.

Personally I think we should at the very least start with prisoners and gang members and take it from there.

to yoru objections:

1.  OMG, businesses will actually have to compete for employees...  Unemployment will drop even lower.  Businesses that "rely" on illegal immigrants will be forced to become leaner, more efficient companies.  All told, it can't but Help our economy.  Oh, and your "youth won't work" bit is the pure fabrication of somebody.  They won't try to get jobs these days because they Can't get them even when they try...
   
2.  Ok, then let's do it.  Your not the only person here who thinks immigration paperwork is extremely difficult and time-consuming...  But we need to enforce the laws against illegal immigration.  I'd be satisfied with a passive-aggressive enforcement wherein every illegal we pick up for a traffic violation or what have you gets deported asap.  Make illegal immigration difficult and hazardous and simultaneously make Legal immigration eaasier.

These are not your '40s/'50s Mexican migrant workers; they've got "advocates" and "organizations" now like La Raza and MeCHA and "immigrant rights" groups. Their advocates "demands" are not for assimilation, they are for recognition and acceptance as a separate entity.

The cultural assimilation of the early part of the 20th Century is a thing of the past.

Your objection seems to be that the quality of people who are coming in is low. But there are low-grade individuals in any population.

Yes, but the level of skills and education for the average Japanese or, for that matter, native-born Californian, is a great deal higher than that of the average Mexican immigrant.  Why these particular immigrants, out of the universe of immigrants who would choose to come here?  Why are we importing poverty and ethnic strife, and why do we think this country will be a better place with twice or three times as many people as it already has?  Simply to state that there is work for them to do, while true in a narrow sense, is not very helpful without first determining to what extent they are displacing natives, and to what extent they are creating the demand in the first place, by virtue first of their own consumption and secondly by making it more appealing to substitute labor for capital by depressing wages.  Finally, it begs the question of whether the sole purpose of the United States is to provide efficient returns to capital.  Are we a nation, or a market?

I didn't say try to sway the left, we all know that is impossible.  I just suggest we stay on message with our ultimate goals but presented in moderate tones (compassionate conservatism hahaha).  I truly believe that the majority of Americans would agree with our message, the real fight is not to allow the left to mischaracterize our methods.

on immigration.  I don't recall Clinton shilling for more immigration like Bush has.

with the same eyes I look at the pro-abortion crowd.  It isnt a pretty look either.  Do they not understand that the concept of 'illegal' inmigration makes a mockery out our whole system of laws? Now, as an inmigrant myself I know what is like to live in a hell-hole of country; At the same time, I also know to follow the laws and rules of the country which has welcomed and adapted me as a son.  Plus, how is it that X group of people can just walk through the southern border and receive the sympathy of the pols, while group Z must wait and obey accross oceans? If the republicans dont get this issue right their only salvation for 08 will be a Hillary clinton run, because I may otherwise sit on my behind and let them plunder from the political ivory tower where I believe they reside.

That's why I think if we pre-emptively adopted the rhetoric of key factions of the left (anti-corporate activists, unions, the anti-"ports deal" people on that side), it'd be highly difficult for the La Raza left to turn it against us as racist and fascist.

Ordinarily, I'd be opposed to adopting anti-corporate sentiments to achieve something.  We're at war, though, and I feel that border security is vital to our national security in this war.  If temporarily throwing our weight behind city and state living wage laws, and how illegal immigrants circumvent those, is what it takes to protect us from a smuggled Iranian nuke, so be it.

At the very least it would perplex the Democrats: "by supporting illegals I am supporiting evil corporations?"

We could take it a step further, I am sure that, out of the thousands working for these corporations, there HAS to be one gang member. We could say that evil corporations are in league with the mexican underworld!

But, joking aside, i think it IS a good tactic. Reason and logic works well for us, it feels cold and heartless to democrats. To sway them you need an emotional campaign.

Before I came to Red State, I couldn't fathom why anyone on the right could want anything resmbling a guest worker program.

Now, though, I know there are some respectable, reasonable arguments in favor of such a position.

So over time I've grown a more positive view of that side.

It's MEChA, not MeCHA.

I clearly remember the days of seeing those HUGE 'MEChA' signs in high school, with huge crowds at their table, and having NO idea what it was about, or why they wrote their name that way.

I now know, though, that it's written funny because it's a spanish acronym, and they treat Ch as a letter to itself, separate from C and H.

that many pro-market conservatives think the laws should be changed to allow more legal immigration as part of a solution to the imbalance in the number of immigrants who want to come, the number of employers who want them to come, and the much lower number that are allowed to come legally.  Breaking the law is wrong.  But the law isn't there for its own sake.  If we let 3 million (1% of our population) into the country each year, the pressure to immigrate illegally would fall substantially.

Hopefully something along the lines of President Bush's plan will help ease the imbalance on the border by letting more people come through a legal means and stay above the law rather than in the shadowy corners that work against assimilation and lead to security threats.

I don't care for their agenda regardless of how they style their name.

The horses are out of the barn.  Things that are talked about today should have been implemented 20 or 30 years ago.  Fences, beefed up Border Patrol, and a INS that actually functions.  We have an alien population in our country that takes to the streets to protest our constitutional process, something they couldn't do in their own country.  Anybody remember the 1968 pre Olympic Mexican demonstrations, only about one hundred people were killed in that one.  The implications of the demonstrations here for the future are worth considering, having pulled this off and flexing their muscles in the process what other opportunities will present themselves for mass demos?  Welfare rights, politicical campaigns, education, broad vistas open up and this from people many of whom are illegal or temp visitors. The effects on social spending, the silver platters offered to judges on which to issue destructive rulings, the dilution, as if we need more, of the concept of law as well as citizenship. the list can go on.  If I may say so this is a high price to pay in order to show sympathy for "hardworking Mexicans" and provide hiring flexability to business who in the first place shouldn't be hiring at all in the absence of proper documentation.  But as I said, too little, too late.  It's over, the mobs in the street will get the final say.  Whatever laws do get passed will be watered down or flat out ignored and the plutocracy in Mexico will be the victors for it.  As they say, lay back and enjoy it, and please pass the tequila.

So if "being 18 or 19 and unemployed is a serious problem", but being 16 or 17 and in high school without a part-time job is not, why don't we quote separate statistics? Does anyone have statistics for 18-19 year olds, or possibly for 18-25 year olds, which leave the 16-17 year olds out?

As for the current immigration bill, charging someone caught here illegally with a felony does seem harsh. Some of them are probably hard-working people who can't make a living in Mexico. But there may be a good middle ground--if an otherwise law-abiding illegal alien is caught, they are given a year to go through the system and become legal, otherwise they are deported if caught again. But if an illegal alien is caught while committing a crime, he/she is deported immediately to their country of origin--especially if it's not Mexico!

This could distinguish between poor migrant workers trying to support their families, and gang members who are trying to reclaim the southwestern United States for Mexico. Does this sound reasonable?

what you say is highly intuitive, yet the reports I read over the weekend indicated that the labor lobby was in the corner of Dems opposed to the Sennsenbrenner bill. I have to assume the labor leaders are banking their future on unionizing the poor Mexicans that come here, I guess at the expense of the higher wage union workers who would compete for some of the same jobs. The Black community leaders also seem conspicuously silent on this issue. It seems to me that the black communinty, being that its diproportionately poor, would most directly benefit from employment opportunities that are currently going to illegal immigrants who work for cut rate wages.

Like I said, in theory your point is intuitive, but if I had to bet, I'd guess that the labor and black community leaders will ultimately back the Dems that they are in bed with at the expense of their own constituencies.

this in someting like a "Join America" marketing and GOP political campaign that encourages illegals to become documented, promotes integration and citizenship, and discourages the hiring of illegals it becomes a win-win for all.  Except the Dems, since it is rare they do anything but attack without presenting an alternate plan.  

Stem the unchecked flow through our open borders first, then a positive campaign that accomplishes our goals and encourages those immigrants already here to join the system.  This type of win-win would be hard to criticize and would garner public support.  It would be hard to criticize GOP pols who ask immigrants, businesses, and the public to "Join America".  A plan that solves the cause of the problem, slowly repairs the damage already done, and does not "victimize" anyone would be hard to beat.  There will be those that insist on punishing the illegals, but i think this is the real "strawman" argument.

A plan like this also makes it difficult for the left to drum up support for illegals that have not jumped on the bandwagon

( We can unceremoniously waterslide these back over the wall).  

...why we should not permit illegal immigration from Mexico. I won't say whether I agree or disagree, since your arguments and the counters have already been stated millions of times and I wouldn't be adding anything.

But here's my extremely short answer to all of your points: they're here, and they're demonstrating en masse. Now what do we do? There aren't any easy answers.

The argument was that there are jobs Americans won't do.

So I bring facts to counter that argument, namely that there are instead Americans that businesses won't hire.

And now you start talking about felonies?  Come on.

Maybe you want to surrender, but some of us aren't so quick to give up.

...responses here that the issue which most energizes people is the economic one: they're taking jobs away from our young people. I personally feel that immigrant populations create plenty of demand and opportunity, but there's no point in trying to convince people of that, so I won't try.

How's this for a suggestion: let's do something like they tried to do in France: let's make young Americans easier to hire. Let's drop the minimum wage requirement for people under the age of 20, and also remove FICA/FUTA withholding and OSHA regulations for workers who are below 20 years of age and make less than some amount of money, say... $30,000. In other words, let's make American young people economically competitive with the illegals.

How about that?

I only talked about felonies because the bill passed by the House of Representatives proposes to make being caught as an illegal alien a felony.

I didn't bring it up--if you object, write to your Congressman!

are counter-productive to the organizer's goals and accomplish nothing more than make the public aware that it is high time the problem is addressed and remedied.  This is a good opportunity for the GOP, I just hope they will take advantage of it.

As for the current immigration bill, charging someone caught here illegally with a felony does seem harsh. Some of them are probably hard-working people who can't make a living in Mexico.

How about the hard-working poor who can't make it in any other country in the world?  They need to take up their economic situation with their government not ours.

With respect to the "felony", it's not really a big deal.  In fact, there are many "classes" of felony.  Here in Arizona they range from Class 1 (Murder) to Class 6 (possession of small amounts of drugs).  If you are arrested on a Class 6, you are typically given probation and the felony is reduced to a misdemeanor after you successfully complete your probation requireements.  The reason the bill makes illegal immigration a felony is because the officials in "Sanctuary Cities" refuse to arrest illegals or even question their status.  They argue that illegal immigration is a misdemeanor and they don't have the time or resources to be enforcing federal law that isn't even classified as a felony.

...that illegal Mexicans are crowding out immigration from other parts of the world, because there is a putative natural limit to how many newcomers we can assimilate. (I can just about accept the point about the limit, because that's the way it has worked historically.) Now what exactly is your reason for preferring immigrants from Sudan (your example) to those from Mexico. They're just as poor and uneducated on the whole, maybe more. Is it because you want a certain amount of racial diversity? Or is it a matter of fairness?

I agree with Leon's point that a certain proportion of people will brave all manner of obstacles to get here, legally or not. And without going so far as to say that our laws are meaningless, I do think this is the kind of person that should get a chance in America.

I live in a zip code in New York City in which approximately 100 different languages are spoken. The neighborhood had been majority Hispanic (with many illegals of course), Armenian and Chinese, until the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe cracked open 15 years ago. Since then we've had wave after wave of newcomers. More recently it's been large numbers of Indians and Pakistanis. I'm a pretty decent linguist but as often as not, I see well-dressed, busy people walking down my block speaking languages I can't come anywhere near to identifying. They're young, happy, friendly, chatty, they work hard at their jobs, and they are having beautiful happy children. It's a kick to watch people from completely different nations talk to each other on the street in broken English, the only language they have in common.

I'm not having a problem with any of this.

to an irredentist movement?

...frighten you? I haven't spent much time in California since the Internet boom, and I've never spent much time in the Southwest or Texas. So I'm lacking the perspective.

To a large extent, the melting pot works a lot better than some people would like to admit.

truism that the extremist factions typically drive large-scale social movements, subtly, if unconsciously, redirecting them and reorienting them towards extreme ends, it scarcely requires any imagination at all to grasp that even a small percentage of irredentists will be instrumental in the awakening and perpetuation of a separatist consciousness that, in many instances, will not manifest as virulently as that of Mecha, but will nonetheless be sufficient to ennervate what few, feeble efforts we are likely to undertake towards the end of assimilation.  See also: extremism, Islamic.  And why wouldn't any American, possessed of the filial love for his nation that patriotism simply is, be concerned about the emergence, within our own borders, of a population animated by a cultural allegiance defined, in large measure, by its otherness in relation to an American identity?  

Prescription drugs were a campaign promise in 2000 and if HSAs become more commonplace (they were tucked away in the legislation) then we may have had a good trade off...

The G.W.P. is also a campaign promise and unless unemployment is above 6.5% (it's at 4.8%!!!!!), it's a darn good idea economically.

CFR- Was McCain's Issue, the President had to sign it out of political necessity...

Out of Control Spending-- Congress's Fault, Not Bush's Fault

Every regional location in America has some sort of unique heritage and cultural background. In Texas alone, which has it's own unique heritage that so many there are proud of on it's own, are a variety of groups and mix of people from all forms of differing and seperate cultures and customs. Most are still maintained in some form or another. In Fredericksburg, Texas, just outside Austin, is a community that is basically 100% German in heritage and custom for example. The architecture, restaurants, customs, festivals, hertitage and so forth all play out on a daily basis. It attracts tourist and visitors and curious onlookers like so many places in the U.S.

I couldn't really bring myself to say that the Quakers have completely assimilated into the U.S. culture or any other for that matter, especially since U.S. culture semems to be defined by a series of different cultures with a main purpose, guided by the Constitution.

With that being said, it's my belief that something has to be done on the border. I'm tempted to say that I have special insight to the situation, but it may only turn out to be biased observation, we'll see.

Born in El Paso, Texas and living there off and on for 11 years in my youth and onto my 20's, I observed the slow progression of effects from illegal immigration on the city of El Paso over a long period of time and to this very day.

From the campus of the University of Texas at El Paso, while looking out the south facing window of my buddies dorm room ( Kelly Hall, building # 22 on this map http://www.utep.edu/search/campusmaplarge.html) I would watch the incredible morning ritual of tens of thousand of Mexican workers coming over the river to seek, find or get to a job for that day. Sometimes groups would all rush together. Sometimes in smaller, "just family" groups. Sometimes just one guy, hauling * into the downtown streets, and once there, distinguishing illegal from legal is all but impossible. All the while, border patrol agents are so everwhelmed they get a morning stretch by arresting a small handful (bored), scramble about trying to catch one guy (rookie), or stay in thier trucks enjoying donuts and coffee taking in the spectacle (pro).

Just a few yards South of building 22 on the map linked above is Interstate 10, the map basically ends there. Let me fill in what isn't seen. At this link which is absurdly long because I don't know how to do the code,

ttp:/images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/texas/elpasoeast.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ww
w.lib.utexas.edu/maps/texas&h=2100&w=1274&sz=435&tbnid=Myh
QHI-EXT4J:&tbnh=150&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmap%2Bof%2Bel%2B
paso%2Btexas%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&start=3&sa=X&oi=images&ct=im
age&cd=2

is a map. At the bottom left hand side of this map you'll see building 22 at the University. Beyond Interstate 10, you'll notice about 100 yards of railraod tracks,s very small patch of land with some very small roads on it, then the Rio Grande. Across that, cheap labor ready and willing.

You'll also notice it's about 350 yards from building 22 to the Mexican border. Up to 40,000 a day come across, do thier job and go back to Mexico each night, most not living in El Paso at all. Some live in towns south of El Paso that have sprung up all by themselves. Squatters, that have just set themelves up on some rpivate or government land and began a township. No water, ecxept what is hauled in, electricity grids are illegally hooked up, waste disposal does not exist, schooling, etc..etc..

Real uses for cheap labor have actually deminished over 30 years or so and the jobs that are available are being filled also by cheap Mexican labor. Jobs that normally would be taken by American's are now being filled by this labor source in competition with it's American counterpart. Waiters, secretaries, legal assistants, warehouse workers, carpenters, etc..etc... Because of the competition from across the border, minimum wage is the norm for these and other "skilled jobs". That makes American citizens living in El Paso a cheap source of labor as well, because they have to take the incredibly low wage or leave the city, which so many have done. Production of certain goods are definitely making some people wealthy, and many companies have moved production headquaters to and around the city for access to this labor market.

The price however, has been the city itself. It's very, very difficult for median jobs to be found. Making a living is also very difficult for most of the residents and many of the nations poorist zip codes exist in the metropolitan area's.

I believe the city is now 85% or higher that are hispanic, the heritage however, is still a wonderful one. Many of the people that live there now are directly from Mexico, and from one of it's poorist states, Chihuhahua. Although it's difficult to get by, they seem to really appreciate thier new existence because it is far better than where they just came from. A great deal of money travels back to Juarez, Mexico from families in El Paso without taxation. So much so, a huge portion of Juarez is directly dependant on it, more than a million people I understand.

Anything that stands in the way of that money getting back to Mexico and even further south now, will be opposed across the board by the hispanic voters and policy makers, who now seem to want to push thier own agenda and open up this situation even further.

Eventually a stand will have to be made, the to question to me is; Who will have the balls to cut off thier own?

...even a legal immigration program from Mexico without admitting the small percentage of irredentists that will, on your analysis, suffice to defeat the goal of assimilation? (You can't screen them out by interviewing them because they will lie.)

If you've given up on Americans' willingness to demand assimilation from new arrivals (signalled by your words "few, feeble efforts") then our choice is to close our borders in toto, or to accept that our culture will change.

If you're convinced that immigrants from Mexico carry with them a cultural orientation that is inherently inimical to American-ness, then we should close the border entirely and eject the Mexicans that are here. Are you prepared to go that far? For my part I believe that if we welcome them, they will assimilate, while retaining a distinct cultural sub-identity. Maximos, it seems to me that you are more afraid of Americans' cultural weakness than of Mexicans' cultural strength. And you may be right.

The numerous Mexican flags at the LA rally put the lie to the claim that these people simply "want to be Americans," as do the signs claiming that the "true history" is that California was stolen from Mexicans.  I can't see the wisdom in allowing the settlement of many millions of people from a country with a developed sense of nationalism, a nationalism defined to a large extent in opposition and resentment toward El Norte, and backed up by spurious claims of dispossession by los gringos to settle in those areas they claim were stolen from them. Let's not forget either, for all the talk of American racism, that racism flows in both directions, and that Mexicans frequently don't like white people much, for reasons stemming from Mexican history.  In the hands of a meddlesome foreign government, such as Mexico's surely is, and a few demagogues, who are never in short supply, the potential for violent revanchism is surely present.

It is possible that rapid growth in immigrant prosperity will dampen any such impulses, but even assuming that will happen rapidly, rather than in three or four generations, we need to stop the flow of new immigrants so that the ones already here aren't continually in competition with ones arriving today, and so that the Mexican folkways of their communities aren't continually renewed by new arrivals.  The Italian, German, and Eastern European immigrants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries didn't really assimilate, either, until after the flow was reduced by legislation.  And frankly, the economic barriers to their assimilation were a lot lower than the barriers to Mexican assimilation today.

He can veto this stuff. CFR should've been vetoed. Some of the more crazy spending bills should've been vetoed. His budget proposals weren't all that great either... though usually better than when he ended up signing. He doesn't get a free pass on this.

would be preferable to homogeneous immigration.  10,000 immigrants in your neighborhood speaking 100 different languages will have to learn English to communicate with each other, as in your example.  10,000 speaking one language, don't.

My only concern here is its impact on future illegal immigration if we legalize him. That is why we need to put some controls in place before we do it. The issue besides terrorism and criminal activity (drug smuggling/human trafficking/etc) is sovereignty. That is my main concern with the border issue. We aren't much of a nation if we can't control our own borders or determine who gets to move here. Illegal immigration is every bit as much of an attack on our sovereignty as the ICC, for example.

I do believe we need to rethink the minimum wage, and how it is calculated. jack Kingston had some good thoughts on how farmers are stuck between being competitive and adhering to the rules. See the 7th paragraph here.

It is interesting that the biggest proponents for minimum wage are unions. Not because ANY union worker makes that but because they can say, "hey, if the lowliest minimum wage worker is making $8, then our trained professionals surely are worth more than $20...".

So, yes, i think that would be a good start.

I live six blocks from a barrio in which Spanish is spoken almost exclusively. And if I ride the subway twenty minutes to Flushing, I'll arrive in a vibrant community full of small businesses, where there's no need to speak any language but Korean. (And to the issue of xenophobia, few can hold a candle to Koreans, some of whom will tell you in so many words that they're going to take the US away from white people because we're too stupid to keep them from doing it.)

If the issue in restricting immigration is the protection of Anglophone culture, I submit that the horse has already left the barn. I'm sure you'll reply that given a couple of generations, English will be back. Fair enough. But at least we've clearly identified the source of your discomfort and laid it on the table.

I'm sure I've sacrificed a lot of cred and gotten plenty of people to think I'm an anti-American nutcase for my comments on this thread, but I haven't actually expressed a strong viewpoint on either side. My real point (which I made in my original answer to Leon) is just this:

Illegal immigration is a fait accompli, and if we're going to either slow it down or reverse it, let's understand in very clear terms why we're against it. Otherwise the politics, which has already produced many strange bedfellows, will stay confused and treacherous. Not least among my many concerns is that I don't want to see the Republican Party splinter over this.

where loyalty to the fundamental precepts and institutions of American society are concerned, Americans lack the confidence to enforce assimilation to the norms arising from those cultural, societal, and political markers.  With the notable exception of a few dessicated abstractions, Americans cannot endure the thought of actually requiring and compelling allegiance to their own traditions.  The very fact that they will go wobbly at the sight of a few-tear streaked faces of illegals facing deportation, in the unlikely event that an enforcement of the provisions of the immigration law is actually undertaken in good faith, and with sufficient resources, suffices to demonstrate that Americans are bereft of the cultural confidence (because they are increasingly wont to reflect upon the perennial problems of ethics and self-governance from the perspectives of the individual, the consumer, and the rights of discrete grievance groups) requisite to the resolution of this slow-motion crisis.  I am under no illusions that my views will carry the argument (argument having much more to do with emotive resonances than logic) or appeal to a broad stratum of the population, but there are moments in the unfolding historical experience of a civilization which mandate hardness, and we are a people sunken in maudlin sentiment, incapable of much hardness towards ourselves, let alone those towards whom we are encouraged to feel some burden of guilt and obligation, however absurd.

...I'll try connecting them for you. You believe we need to close our borders and eject the non-Americans. And you feel this way out of love for America and her unique culture. And you're not confident about our willingness to do this, so your harp is tuned to mourning for a passing, once-great civilization.

Yes?

Not diversity. Im all for diversity but not a forced, affirmitive action type of diversity. Diversity should come naturally from an open market where people work hard and compete.

Fairness and sovereignty are my concern. Historically every country on earth has controlled their borders. Ironically Mexico itself isnt very "open" to immigration from the south.

I am a child of immigrants and I believe like you that someone who has gone through harrowing experiences to escape their situation is pretty heroic. I guess that is why I mention Sudan, to show that thier standard of living is worse than Mexico's. People play on the heartstrings by talking about how bad it is in Mexico but I can show you many countries where their situation is worse, if not death-defying. By allowing an unbalanced amount of people to come from one country it isnt very fair to someone from a country that is worse off.

Previously, I mentioned proximity because it is the biggest factor in creating the unbalance. Someone from the Sudan or Armenia or even France HAS to go through the legal system because of mode of transportation. Mexico and Canada are the only countries that you can literally walk across the border. Take that factor out and then you have a level playing field.

an out-migration of illegals be forced by a change in the relevant incentive structures.  This will entail, at the margins, some emotionally wrenching scenes.  But civilization, while it may, if it is to stand as a measure of human flourishing, require compassion and sympathy, cannot be predicated upon these virtues considered abstractly, for these virtues are corrosive of civilization, which is always a particular thing, when they are applied indiscriminately as between the citizen and the alien.  Some measure of harshness is thus inescapable for the nation that wishes to preserve its identity and the integrity of its society and character.  

We lack the capacity to manifest that occasional harshness.  So, yes.

Just as I was reading your post, a trio of Mexican guys walked past my window in their slouchy, sodden way. Evidently they didn't get day-work this morning so they're walking around drunk and blowing the day off. The irony is almost too much to bear.

Sounds like you think our problem is not too many immigrants but rather not enough that aren't from Mexico. I don't see any particular reason to enforce "fairness" in this regard. (Do we have a contract with the poor, downtrodden masses in every other country in the world?) If we're going to accept a lot of immigration (which is not a forgone conclusion), then proximity strikes me as a particularly good reason to prefer Mexicans. It's a lot easier for them to get here. Not to be flip with you, but I'm pointing out that the fairness issue strikes me a very weak reed.

...solicitude strikes me as a red herring. As evidence, just look at the millions of Americans who have become bitterly, if inchoately, exercised about this issue. This weekend's demonstrations and the (immoderate) voices raised in response tell me that there is a tremendous amount of passion on both sides of the question.

Somehow, it will be resolved, and hopefully without a lot of collateral damage to truly weak institutions like the Republican Party. I don't share your concern for the weakness of the American spirit, which is robust and resilient.

I grew up and live in Texas. I've been around hispanic people my whole life - played soccer with them, went to school, went to mass. Many of them were immigrants, some illegal. My experience with hispanic people has been the same as Leon's. They work hard, cherish family and are good people. Good Democratic voters.

Can anyone who opposes these illegal immigrants tell me how they're hurting us?

it is in fact anything but "robust and resilient."

Hmmm.

Third, we need to come to realistic terms with the millions of illegal immigrants who are already in this country. ...

Absolutely not.

We had an amnesty several times before.  And each and every single time the situation has gotten worse.  And each and every single time the promise has been better enforcement.

Not a chance.

Frankly I think it's a cheap stunt to characterise the process of enforcing immigration law as "stormtrooper".  I am not a Nazi because I demand the law to be enforced.  I am not a Nazi period.  And I am extremely offended that you think you can call me a Nazi so blithely.  And please no nonsense about how you didn't actually mean to call anyone a Nazi.

If the term stormtrooper isn't associated with Nazism then what?  Were you perhaps referring to Star Wars?

If you think you can have immigration reform while not dealing effectively with the illegals here in America, then you're in a fantasy land.  And if you think that the way to effectively deal with illegal immigrants is to reward them, then you're not just in a fantasy land but in a land with rainbow skys and pretty pretty ponys.

You've met nice illegal aliens.  Bully for you.  But that doesn't excuse this pathetic post of yours.

Cruise around the site a bit, and you will find your answers. It is not as though this debate has been neglected around here.

The American establishment, conceded or not, is multiculturalist, meaning that, by its very nature, it is only very weakly American, if at all.

I'm almost certainly on your side here (take a look at my post at the top of the front page right now), but this sort of truculence is not helping anyone, so take it easy.

...we have reached a very interesting point, probably marking the limit of this discussion. It may be that robustness and resilience are not characteristics of those elements of our society that you and Paul would define as "American." (I differ, but will not start a threadjack.)

I submit again, with great respect for your probity and the depth of thought with which you've arrived at this point, that you are more afraid of America's cultural weakness than of the strength of some foreign "other." If you really believe that, then the influx of Mexican illegals is in itself rather uninteresting, in fact merely the proximate but ineluctable instrument of our cultural demise.

Hmmm.

1. They aren't legal.
   
2. They consume a vast array of social services and healthcare resources.
   
3. On average it costs $11,000 USD per student per year to educate children.  How many illegal alien kids are there in the school systems?
   
4. They are Mexican, as an example, citizens, not American citizens.  They're loyalty is to Mexico.  It is a fundamental problem when the coming majority of residents are actually citizens of nation that is inimical to America.

And yes Mexico is inimical to America.  In fifty years Mexico has never, not once, ever supported America in the United Nations as just one example.

5. Illegal aliens compete with American citizens for jobs.  Illegal aliens aren't just fruit pickers.  They compete with new and relatively unskilled workers such as highschool students and graduates.  They also compete with other minority groups such as African-Americans.

Additionally working crews of illegal aliens generally speak only Spanish.  If you're an American citizen looking for a job and you cannot speak Spanish then you won't get hired into a work crew that is a majority of illegal aliens.

6. Illegal aliens depress real wages due to outside competition for jobs.
   
7. 1/3rd of all federal prisoners are illegal aliens.  No idea how many state prisoners are illegal aliens.  Consider just how much crime is represented by this number.

...

Is that enough for you or should I continue?

Hmmmm.

No problem, I'll take it easy.

But there's no excuse for someone trying to evoke the imagery that the term "storm trooper" always does.  This subject is potentially divisive enough without throwing firebombs into the mix.

this is still not an accurate transcription of my views, which are: that multiculturalism, as the contemporary expression of liberalism in culture and politics, has already ennervated the Republic.  Mass Mexican immigration is merely a migration by people who still believe in their own cultural institutions and forms into the void left by liberalism.  

I also think that we have way too many immigrants if the numbers are right. It is very hard to sustain millions of new people, especially those who drain the social services system. I dont think that conflicts with my concern that we dont have an equal balance.

No we dont have a contract with the poor masses in any other country but that is my point. What contract do we have with the Mexican masses? None. So we then have made a system that limits immigration. If you are going to set any limit then how do it? Do you give an unbalanced favoratism to one race, which is what LaRaza would like, or do you administer an equal proportion to each country?

I also think the poverty aspect is a non-starter. There are plenty of HIGHLY skilled people in other countries who cant work here if they go about it legally. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot in that regard.

In the end it comes down to a matter of law. Do we uphold them or not?

I know you're not being flip, I use the word fairness for lack of a better term (actually it was a choice of yours).

Hmmmm.

1. The fact is, the President has come up with such a compromise - there is no amnesty.

It is an amnesty.

A. They stay here legally.

B. They can go through a short process to become citizens.

C. They suffer no penalty other than that they can stay here legally and go through a short process to become citizens.

Take a pig, dress it up and put on some lipstick, it's still a pig.

But there's no excuse for someone trying to evoke the imagery that the term "storm trooper" always does.  This subject is potentially divisive enough without throwing firebombs into the mix.

I agree, and the Nazi comparisons have been rebuked elsewhere

The impact of  illegal aliens is disproportionately felt by the unskilled laborers in this country, especially younger workers.

Also, the presence of cheap labor provides a disincentive for technical innovation, which would otherwise create more skilled jobs in America.

I'm starting to look at the open borders crowd with the same eyes I look at the pro-abortion crowd.  It isnt a pretty look either.  Do they not understand that the concept of 'illegal' inmigration makes a mockery out our whole system of laws?

I feel the same way about the folks who passed the 21st Amendment.  Damn hippies.  

I think the point about everyone learning english is not just about protecting the Anglophone culture in itself. I think it is looking aht the elephant in the room.

The numerous neighborhoods you mention are quaint if you are on a bus tour or know 20 languages. The problem is that in order for a country to effectively communicate and feel a sense of community with everyone in the country it has to start by speaking the same language, whatever that is. Otherwise, these bonds will fall apart and you have a real problem.

English is not my first language even though I was born here, but I learned it. To communicate and conduct business it is essential. If they are going to have signs in HomeDepot in english and spanish, where are the greek and estonian signs?

So your concern is really with the "dominant" (read, "noisy") political culture that streams from our academic and business elites, and poisons our institutions of government. I submit to you that, like a deep, cold, quiet ocean, the great mass of Americans inform a culture that exists below the highly-visible but unrooted elite levels. This true American culture, which greatly esteems freedom and is firmly grounded in religion, is not any less strong, robust, and resilient for its apparent quietude.

First, I am not saying that everyone who is opposed to illegal immigration (Hi, that's me) is a Nazi. My point is very simply this: if you start advocating a policy that would successfully extricate the illegals from this country and deport them, such a thing cannot be successfully accomplished apart from the tactics that I mentioned. The typical situation involves lots of people living in the same house - some legal, some not, if you really wanted to sort it all out, what are you going to do? Send in guys to "brown" neighborhoods asking for papers from everyone who speaks Spanish? I didn't call anyone a Nazi, so take your oxygen treatments, but those are stormtrooper tactics, no doubt about it. And my point was that I can't envision another tactic by which any significant portion of the 12 million illegals who are already here could be rounded up and deported.

You've met nice illegal aliens.  Bully for you.  But that doesn't excuse this pathetic post of yours.

I don't need an excuse to post here. While we're talking about fantasy lands, let's address the one where, even if we could find a substantial portion of the illegal immigrants (apart from the aforementioned tactics), we could successfully as a matter of logistics transport any group of 12 million across a border like the one we have in Mexico.

a view.  The state creates the people.  Education is one way, borders, or the lack thereof, another, immigration, still one more.  In the long run, the alleged conservatism of the American people means no more than the fervent Catholicism of Henrician Englishmen.  The Tudors wanted their Reformation, and by golly, they got it, though it took decades of persecutions and revolts.  Look at how much more liberal the inchoate will of the American people has become since the 1960s, or even the 1980s.

They do not get off scot-free.  No penalty whatsoever.  They apply for the program here (in essence, admitting they entered illegally), and they are penalized.  It is just not the penalty YOU want to have imposed on them for their actions.

There is a specific definition of amensty.  What the Administration is not a "general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses" or "an act of clemency by an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individuals" as the two major dictionaries put it.

What proposed is not a generalized pardon (which, incidentally, the President has the power to grant at will with no chance of Congress overturning it).  It is more accurately defined as a plea-bargain, in which they admit/plead guilty to an offense in return for a reduced penalty.

To call it an amnesty defies the way it has been defined in the English language for years.  It is grossly misleading.

The state creates the people? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that leaders at all levels create the people in a long chain of negotiated transactions? I didn't say a single thing about liberal or conservative in this connection and I'd rather not haul the uncertainty and semantic baggage of those terms into this.

I have to tell you that if the American people are moving in a political direction that is uncongenial to anyone here (not to say this is actually happening, which I can't know), you'd have about as much luck opposing it as we're having now, opposing illegal immigration. Is the Tudor example really operative in 21st century America? Our leaders must lead us by persuasion, not coercion. (Hmm. Given that we'll soon elect another President Clinton, maybe I am being too sanguine.)

but to speak of the American people as if it's just some thing, out there, pre-existing the arrangements and institutions that formed it, is mistaken, even if just such a misapprehension is the basis of our theory of social contract.  

Language is most definitely a cultural binder. (Like you, I was born in America to immigrant parents, and English is not my first language.) These days I'm a lot more comfortable that the status of English as the "world language" (soon to be joined by one or more of the flavors of Chinese) will drive our immigrant populations to English. And for what it's worth, most New Yorkers these days can handle a bit of Spanish. It's hilarious to watch the pizzeria guys across the street from me (with whom I converse in our shared native language, Italian) have all had to learn enough Spanish to work with their kitchen and delivery help.

You won't find many signs in Greek at the Home Depot (unless you go to the one in Astoria perhaps). Have you ever been to the international airport in Detroit? For almost 20 years now, the signage in that airport has been in English and Japanese.

I have to say I'm not as worried about this as you are.

of the American people, such as it may be, is utterly immaterial to this question, as the elites have tacitly embraced a program which, whether by intent or inadvertance, entails the subversion of that American culture.  In a move notable for its Brechtian boldness, they have purposed to create a new people, and to erect a new economic order.  And hitherto, they. Have. Always. Gotten. Exactly. What. They. Want.

There is no reason to believe that the present circumstances will eventuate in a different outcome.

Not even a little bit?

there has been a fair amount of resistance to the machinations of the elites on the immigration question.  It simply hasn't achieved anything, unless eliciting jejeune accusations of xenophobia and racism are to be reckoned as achievements.  What form resistance to the immigration regime takes once the realization sinks in that the Republican party may not represent anything resembling a solution is anyone's guess.  

It's reasonable to wait and see what form the people's response to the fecklessness of both Republicans and Democrats will take. It's a different matter to lead it. The feeling and the passion is deep, on both sides of the issue, and I think it's worth understanding exactly where it's coming from.

If the pizza guy learned english why does he have to handle a bit of spanish instead of the kitchen staff handling a bit of english, or considering their immediate situation, handle a bit of italian?

I dont see international signs in an international airport related.

I am not really, really worried about it. I just bring it up for conversation. As you know, for more than twenty years there have been signs solely in spanish on the NYC subway system. I often found how interesting it was that I could read all of them due to what I learned in French class. That is all well and good if those business want to isolate themselves from the general public. I still think it creates more tension than harmony.

they didn't burn 100's of cars, rape women and stab jews at these demonstrations.

A silver lining whether you are pro/con/mushy on this issue. It could have been Paris-redux with these numbers.

With whom?  

because I wanted to see how small this line on the right actually gets.

It's worse: it's a reward.  By letting illegals hop ahead of those who have followed our laws in line to be a legal resident, it rewards their dishonest behavior.

leadership is one thing, and discontent among the populace quite another.  But if we would understand the origins of the passions, we would do well to eschew the facile and defamatory accusations of racism and xenophobia; three-quarters of the American people are not bigots.

What I can't fathom is how people can call themselves "pro-market" while advocating that we bring more unskilled workers into the country.  

There isn't a lack of workers in this country, and I utterly and totally reject any notion that "there are jobs that Americans" won't do.  Vehemently.  The problem is that there are some jobs that don't pay high enough wages to attract workers.  

Being pro-market in this scenario would be to raise wages so as to attract more potential workers because the labor market demands it, not to short-circuit it by importing thousands of workers who judge the low wages relative to pittances.  Someone who made 1.38 per day in Mexico would be more than happy to work for $4/hour in the U.S.  The illegals take jobs for far less than they should, and even if they know better they can't do anything about it because they're illegal.  Any monkey can figure out that wages for unskilled workers become depressed across the board because of it.

There's a guy around the corner from my in my neighborhood that I believe begs for a living.  He's not incapable of doing some unskilled work - but why would he quit begging to work some 8-10 hour-a-day job to make $8/hour when he can do twice that as a beggar in half the time?  Take away all the imported, illegal cheap labor that businesses hire, and suddenly my begging neighbor would be able to find a job for as much or more than he can as a beggar because businesses would be forced to raise wages to get workers.

cheap-labor/next-to-nothing-wages conservatives would like to have more of those mexicans that do jobs for $3.50 an hour (or less) so they can have a little bit of extra profit in their pockets? I understand that there's a demand for more cheap labor, but we shouldnt have to open up our borders or look the other way as more than 12 Millions make a mockery out our system of laws.

1. By definition, right?
   
   
2. How much do they pay in taxes?
   
   
3. There are likely hundreds of thousands of children of illegal aliens in our schools. I hope they're learning about the wonders of our Constitution and freedoms, so they come to value them.
   
   
4. Every immigrant wave that has entered this country has had loyalties to its homeland. The Irish did, Italians, Germans. Over time they become Americanized and come to love the USA's freedoms and fairness. Do you think the Mexican immigrants will be any different?
   

5&6. Who hires these illegal workers at low wages? Who is it who benefits from low wage labor in this country?

7. Reference, please.

My opinion is this: Mexican and other hispanic immigrants come here to work and provide for their families. On the whole they are honest, God-fearing and hard working. They love and cherish their children, they value education, and strive to assimilate. There are dozens of "learn English to succeed" advertisements on spanish language stations. They are exactly the sort of immigrants America should want.

We need to figure a way to make the immigration system work. People like these, who work hard and for their families, should be welcomed.

Seems to me that the biggest problem illegal workers pose for unskilled American workers is that the illegals will work for less than the minimum wage.

This is a problem created by the employer and employee in concert. Any solution will have to address both sides. And people who benefit from those depressed wages - ie, people who live in homes built by illegals, people who eat food prepared by illegals, people who work in offices cleaned by illegals, etc. - all will have to be willing to pay more for such servides.

I'd be more than happy to see the minimum wage go up, and I'd be prepared to pay more for food, housing, etc., if I knew that legal American workers' rights were being protected.

Then every plea-bargain ever entered into by prosecutors is a reward by that logic.

What I can't fathom is how people can call themselves "pro-market" while advocating that we bring more unskilled workers into the country.  

There isn't a lack of workers in this country, and I utterly and totally reject any notion that "there are jobs that Americans" won't do.  Vehemently.  The problem is that there are some jobs that don't pay high enough wages to attract workers.  

The second point I never made.  The first is probably a misunderstanding.  Most pro-market conservatives fundamentally understand how trading across borders benefits both countries.  Also, the increase in financial flows across borders has raised the standard of living in countries that are integrated in the international financial web.  How one sees the positive sum gains from free trade in goods, services and capital but is blind to the gain from free trade in labor I do not understand.  If there are willing workers and willing employers who want to make a contract to exchange work for pay, a free marketer sees this as the invisible hand at work.  When countries create borders to stop the flow of goods, capital and/or labor, they are impeding the free market.

To be clear, there are valid reasons to impede a free market.  Paul Cella's arguments against immigration stem from cultural concerns that he believes necessitate a very limited level of immigration.  This requires pushing back against the free market.  The "open-borders" crowd often advocates that all those who can find a job in the country should have the ability to come and do that work.  Those of us who want a pragmatic solution that answers the fundamental tension of the immigration restrictions and the free market often advocate allowing more immigrants a legal path to enter the country either through higher quotas (3 million a year instead of 1 million) or through a guest worker program.

Finally, since I never made the "Americans won't do it" argument, I'm not going to defend it.  One can argue this isn't an economic issue or that there are other concerns.  But we must understand that any curtailing of immigration is impeding a free market and as with price controls, protectionism, and all other forms of anti-market policies, this has a cost of enforcement and a cost of distorting incentives.  Are those costs worth whatever gains accrue from severe limitations on immigration?  That is the question at the heart of most of the debates on immigration.

I am amazed at how far this thead has gone. Let me say that I am somewhat like Maximos, I hold no hope that the situation will improve, it wil only get worse. Already I am being forced to learn Spainish in order to keep my job, soon it will be your turn.

  Our city is nearly bankrupt, as is my state, two large hospitals have filed for bankruptcy because they have to treat the illegals. It wont get any better because the Republicans are spineless weasels who kowtow to the corporations, and the Democrats are just stupid and evil.

  Learn Spainish.

Pro-market people want to allow the market to make these decisions instead of the government.  That may not please everyone, but the strong arguments for free trade have won over many skeptics since the increase in international trade and finance has lead to increased prosperity and growth in the world.  The marketplace for labor is more free in America than most other places in the world (especially Europe).  And we have benefited from this flexibility.  There is more to be gained economically from increased freedom of movement for labor (i.e. higher immigration quotas or a guest worker program).  These reforms could also give greater incentive to prospective immigrants to come legally rather than illegally.  This will reduce the number of illegal immigrants while helping our economy grow.

"mexicans that do jobs for $3.50 an hour"

Well, if by that you mean do I think that having more hard working, responsible men and women in America is a good thing.  Yes, I do.

If I embezzle a million dollars, and strike a plea bargain for that crime, I don't get to keep the million dollars for pleading guilty and serving a year in jail.

If these illegal aliens 'plead guilty' under the plan and pay the fine or whatever, they DO get to keep their residency, and in fact under many plans get to be on the path to citizenship!

I should correct myself a little.

I said 1.38 a day, when instead it should have been 1.86 per hour.

From this source.

I'm glad to know that I probably fundamentally understand how trading across borders benefits both countries, as I would call myself a "pro-market conservative".

However, I don't think that all the normal rules about free trade apply here; it's true that trade across borders benefits both parties, but in this case, I don't think there's much "trading" going on.  We're getting an influx of workers that's too big for our labor markets to handle well (let alone assimilate into the culture), and there are highly significant external costs (social benefits, for example) that offset a large portion of the benefit.  Also, our poor, uneducation population increases faster than it could naturally.  As for Mexico, they aren't giving anything up.  Suddenly, the economic strains in Mexico are being relieved for free, thus making it even easier for the wealthy Mexican elites to avoid political and economic reform.  As an added bonus, a large part of the Mexican GNP comes from remittances.  A double win for Mexico.  A win-loss, at the very tippy-top best, for the US.  That's not trading; it's exploitation.

You argue that this free trade would improve living standards in both countries, but the reality is that it serves to decrease it in both; in the US, wages for unskilled workers are severely depressed, the culture is threatened, and social services (medical, schools, police activity, etc, etc) are strained.  In Mexico, any incentive for real reform is taken away, and might even serve to make the Mexican elite more brazen because they know that the lowly among them will simply clear out for greener, unenforced pastures.  Again, as I argued before, the "flow" going across borders is fairly one-way.

I apologize for putting words in your mouth about the "americans won't do certain jobs" argument.  I probably just lumped it in because so many people join the argument that you're making along with that one, and I didn't check your post carefully enough.

Two final thoughts: firstly, I should point out that I dislike it when people rationalize breaking the law as "pragmatic" or "realistic", when being pragmatic doesn't require having open borders and an amnesty; it comes off as a rationalization for ignoring the law and the cultural/economic impact of illegal immigration (or mass legal immmigration).

Secondly, I want to put this bug in your ear: Let's say that the borders were completely open today.  Everyone that came across was successfully tracked and accounted for, without exception and without limitation.  At what point is a limit beneficial to us?  What if 20 million people in Mexico found willing employers (including employers that would dump their unskilled workers in favor of the new immigrants that would do the same job for half as much) in the US and came here in the next year or so?  It's the free market at work, right?  Any true conservative knows that we shouldn't do anything to impede the free market! (forgive me for the hyperbole, but I think you should get my point).  Seriously; do you think that the free market should be left to run its course under this scenario?  I'm open to a good argument here, if for nothing else but novelty...

Your characterization of my views:

It's the free market at work, right?  Any true conservative knows that we shouldn't do anything to impede the free market! (forgive me for the hyperbole, but I think you should get my point).

What I said:

One can argue this isn't an economic issue or that there are other concerns.  But we must understand that any curtailing of immigration is impeding a free market and as with price controls, protectionism, and all other forms of anti-market policies, this has a cost of enforcement and a cost of distorting incentives.  Are those costs worth whatever gains accrue from severe limitations on immigration?  That is the question at the heart of most of the debates on immigration.

I'll try to say it differently.  A free market allows anyone to make a contract with anyone for anything they so choose.  We curtail that market when there is some overriding concern.  We made drugs, prostitution, and many other exchanges illegal due to social, cultural, or other concerns.  We have limited immigration also for social and political reasons.  All I ask is that we acknowledge this as a curtailing of a free market.  My personal view is that we start with a free market and limit it when we must.  The question (as I said before) is whether the benefits of our strict limitations on immigration are worth the cost.  This same question can be asked of the Drug War, historically of prohibition, or with respect to many other policy choices.

The costs of the limits on immigration are easily seen.  We spend a lot of money trying to stop immigrants from coming across the border illegally.  Many people want to spend even more money building a wall or "beefing up" border security.  This is the expected cost of impeding a free market.  Furthermore, there is an unseen cost of prohibiting people from making market transactions when they would do so if there was not a regulation against it.  Just as if protectionists had killed NAFTA or other free trade provisions, there is an effect on the economy of additional regulation and interference.

I understand that many people see a benefit in cutting off immigration or keeping the current 1 million per year quota.  I just hope those people have adequately assessed the costs of doing so.  I am a proponent of either a guest worker program or increasing the quota to 1% of our population per year (approx. 3 million people per year).  That 1% is higher than the number of legal and illegal immigrants who come now each year (2-2.5 million IIRC).  It would give a legal avenue to all who wish to come and take part in the opportunities of America.

I must make an engagment I have, but I would like to point out that our economy has been humming along with all of the current immigration while countries who prevent needed young workers from coming in their borders have met hard economic times (see Germany and most of the EU).  I also will quickly mention that if you are only looking at the effect on one subset of Americans, there may well be a negative effect.  However, the overall effect on Americans is positive.  And the overall effect on Mexicans (and other immigrant groups) is positive.  That's how free trade works.  Some people lose.  Most gain.  And overall there is more for everyone.  That is fundamentally lesson of economic theory that has lead to the gains in wealth through globalization.  It applies to labor the same as it does to capital and goods.

What I want is now irrelevant.  Note my comments about what should and could have been done 20-30 years ago.  Add to that the bitter experience of years of law breaking, kid glove treatment, welfare benefits, judicial nonsense, and what kind of bets would you or do you place on the future.  Two things; first lets see what Congress passes and Bush signs, second, and most important, let's then sit back and observe.  Let's observe what happens to immigration numbers, to Latino political influence, and lastly, what happens to any laws passed under current consideration.  If the past is prologue to the future, if it's even a hint, then what seems like pessimism and surrender now may look a little different in a few years.  But it will take a few years.  What you see in the streets now is a flexing of muscle, it's only the start.

Hmmm.

I've heard from a few people in the construction trade and it's not true that illegals only make below minimum wage.  There are illegal aliens in the unions, and they never make minimum wage.  Plus the housing boom and demand for workers has driven up wages for experienced illegal aliens, particularly those in established working crews where a contractor will hire the entire crew as a single unit.

So don't make assumptions about how much illegals get paid.  Some make minimum wage.  But that doesn't mean that they all do or even that a majority do.

Hmmm.

And it stinks just as much.

I for one am glad I abandoned the GOP and will relish my never voting for another Republican.  I have had enough.

Hmmmm.

According to CNN, so take this with a grain of salt, there are approximately 1.8 MILLION illegal alien kids in the educational system.  At $11,000 per kid per year that comes out to:

19,800,000,000

Per year.  Just for elementary school through high school.  This doesn't cover the additional costs that come from college.

Hmmm.

None of this absolves you of that Nazi reference whatsoever.  Either you are a woefully imprecise writer who needs adult supervision or you did that deliberately.

Only a wannabe-Goebbels participates in that nonsense.

First, I am not saying that everyone who is opposed to illegal immigration (Hi, that's me) is a Nazi.

And you did not qualify your statement.  You expressly used that imagery to condemn anyone who supports implementing and forcing control over illegal immigration.  It's this samn NAZI tactic used 20 years ago by people just like you who opposed the implementation of immigration controls then.

The arguments now are the same then, with just as little to commend them.

My point is very simply this: if you start advocating a policy that would successfully extricate the illegals from this country and deport them, such a thing cannot be successfully accomplished apart from the tactics that I mentioned.

So severely punishing those that employ them wouldn't be enough?  So requiring proper documentation for children to be admitted to schools wouldn't be enough?  So requiring BANKS to not loan money, supported by taxpayer dollars, be enough?

There are a multitude of options that would effectively force illegal aliens to leave without the necessity of having jackbooted Rethuglicans going house to house to round up the poor benight people with the yellow armbands.

The typical situation involves lots of people living in the same house - some legal, some not, if you really wanted to sort it all out, what are you going to do?

Well according to you I'm one of those looking to reignite the ovens.

Send in guys to "brown" neighborhoods asking for papers from everyone who speaks Spanish?

I was actually thinking of sending the tanks just flamethrowing everyone of course.

Or I could suggest implementing the myriad ideas set forth by many people that would work much better.  No economics, no economic reason to stay.

But that wouldn't result in enough crispy brown-skinned people would it.

I didn't call anyone a Nazi, so take your oxygen treatments, but those are stormtrooper tactics, no doubt about it.

There is not one single person on this planet that didn't get exactly what your reference was for.  It is the same shameful tactic used by the Left to shut down, and shout down, debate.

Perhaps next time you might consider I don't care to be characterized as a Nazi or a racist.

Frankly if I were to do the same thing to you I would be BANNED.  Why you're still allowed to write is frankly absurd.  I thought less of RedState before, and I think much less of it now.

And my point was that I can't envision another tactic by which any significant portion of the 12 million illegals who are already here could be rounded up and deported.

Oh I dunno.  Require proper documentation before allowing apartment/house rentals and prior to real estate sales?

But I admit it would be a lot more fun to just round people up.  I wonder if I've still got those jackboots they hand out at the Republican Conventions.

I don't need an excuse to post here.

Bully for you.  You've got a blog.  Yay.

Color me unimpressed.

While we're talking about fantasy lands, let's address the one where, even if we could find a substantial portion of the illegal immigrants (apart from the aforementioned tactics), we could successfully as a matter of logistics transport any group of 12 million across a border like the one we have in Mexico.

Frankly I'm done here.  Your post was full of nonsense being passed off as rational thought.  If this is the current state of writing at RedState then I've no desire to waste my time reading it.

There are plenty of effective options that would immediately alter the economic landscape.  Options that would both remove existing illegal aliens AND prevent their return WITHOUT unnecessary violence or those Nazi tactics you decry.

But it would take rational thought and an actual attempt to discourse to really bring those up.  You've shown you're incapable of either.

Ban me or not, it's irrelevant.  I'm done with RedState and I must say that I certainly won't feel the loss.

Of how not to rationally discuss the immigration issue.

Frankly I'm done here.  Your post was full of nonsense being passed off as rational thought.  If this is the current state of writing at RedState then I've no desire to waste my time reading it.

Front doors, backsides, you know the drill. We aim to please.

It is just not the penalty you personally are seeking.

You're not the only one.  I'd like for people who make child pornography to be executed via the old-school GRU method.  But I don't think they are getting amnesty because of the current laws.  Nor do I think that the child molesters let off with extremely light sentences got amnesty, either (as much as I disagree with their sentences).

Clinton invited, who knows how many, Arabs to come and study the art of flying commercial aircraft.  There was no special attention given to immigration and border/visa enforcment by the Clinton Administration.

.

Given that he said elsewhere in the thread he's done with the whole party, I suspect shenanigans.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments.  And again, I apologize for my characterization of your arguments; my only defense is that I don't get paid to blog and I sometimes have to take the lazy way in a debate for practical reasons.

Anyway, I don't disagree with you cf. free trade.  I really don't.  I disagree with your particular application of those principles to this issue.  For example, I think your interpretation of Europe's economic problems is incredibly narrow, to the point of willful ignorance (I don't mean that as an insult); Europe's immigration policies probably have some measurable impact on their economies, but there are so many other relevant issues, even withing the immigration issue, that drive their economic realities.  

In particular, I think there is much to be said about the impact on Europe's economies by the mass influx of immigrants and their unwillingness to assimilate into the host country.  France is no longer French, it's Muslim (or will be if they don't do anything about it).  Do you think that changes to a national cultural identity from a industrial European culture to a third-world, tribal Muslim culture don't have a negative economic impact?  Similarly, do we really want to allow wholesale imporation of Mexico at the expense of the American culture?

Speaking of economic impact, what about the burden on society that poverty imposes?  Apart from threatening the unique cultural identity of this country (which I believe has been a major factor in its economic successes), mass immigration is also mass importation of poverty.  Even if every last immigrant who crossed our borders paid all the taxes that the law says they owe, that still wouldn't even begin to cover the cost that they represent in social services, the strain of law enforcement agencies to police them (poverty==higher crime), a rise in umemployment because of dilution of the labor market, and so on.  To put it in the terms of recent political rhetoric, 50% of all immigrants must be able to support the rest of them with their taxes - that's the way the rest of America works; 50% of us pay for everyone else.  The number of people supported by taxes from that 50% will not increase with the increases in levels of poverty that mass immigration represents.

You mentioned that limiting immigration has costs, and it seems that you have thought through some of that; have you similarly thought through the costs of allowing immigration to continue as is and the cost of doing what you propose ("open borders" is what I would call your proposal)?  I think you overestimate the costs of regulating immigration and enforcing immigration laws, and I similarly think you overestimate the benefit of mass immigration.  Perhaps that is our fundamental disagreement; one which I certainly don't have the economic and financial expertise to resolve easily.

One last thought, because this has gotten too lon g already: what are your reactions to the recent protests?  Do you think that most immigrants (Mexicans, primarily, and other Hispanics) come here with an earnest desire to become Americans?  If not, what are your thoughts on the costs of mass immigration, particularly illegal, then?  Do you think that people who can't  speak intelligible English and march around screaming --- literally screaming --- "Viva la Raza!" (as some of the protesters were doing) are a net benefit to the United States?

Who is it who is hiring these illegal immigrants for these good wages?

Do you think the people doing the hiring are part of the problem?

If so, how would you fix it?

An educated citizen is the best defender of his own liberty, isn't that what Jefferson said?