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.