Colorado panel pitches U.S. immigration ideas

[pampango]

Source: Durango Herald

Every business should have to make sure its employees are legal, while illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay and work if they register with the government and learn English, a University of Denver panel recommended. In a report released Wednesday, the DU (?) Strategic Issues panel made 25 recommendations for the country to consider during the immigration-reform debate, which could hit Congress next year.

Notably, the panel recommended a national identification card that would be required to get a job. The card, coupled with a national requirement for businesses to use the E-Verify database of legal workers, will help cut down on illegal immigration, said the panel's chairman, Jim Griesemer. “No one on the panel said we need to excuse people who break the law," Griesemer said.

He dismissed the suggestion to deport all illegal immigrants as “talk-show chatter." “The issue is, we have a reality of 12 million people living here, and what are we going to do about it?" he said.

People on both “extremes" of the issue would be unhappy with the report, Griesemer said.

Among the recommendations:
a) Simplify the visa system by creating eight categories, down from about 200 today.
b) Allow skilled workers with temporary work visas to switch jobs, instead of staying with the same employer. This would cause free-market competition and boost wages for both immigrants and American workers, Griesemer said.
c) Require immigrants to take English classes, funded by the federal government, and be able to speak English before they can become legal permanent residents or citizens.
d) Give illegal immigrants a “provisional visa" for up to 10 years, allowing them to work, learn English and apply for permanent residency.
e) Continue efforts to strengthen border security.



Read more: http://durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/12/10/Colorado_panel_pitches__US_immigration_ideas/

---

How dare the University of Denver use DU as its abbreviation? :)

Here's the link to the full panel report.
http://www.du.edu/issues/reports/documents/2009IMMIGRATIONREPORT.pdf

[Bette Noir]

1. Finally, someone's talking sense.

I get so tired of the anti-Latino hysteria that sweeps the country every five years or so.

[JonQ]

2. Agree with making identification

of workers mandatory. And strengthening the border.

Disagree with pushing illegals to the front of the line for citizenship as a reward for breaking the law persistently.

[AlphaCentauri]

4. 10 years to get citizenship while they contribute to the economy is a long period of time

10 years they would be paying taxes

[JonQ]

5. People coming here legally often wait for years

I don't think it's fair to reward someone for cheating by letting them cut in line, even if it's near the back of the line.

Frankly we don't need largely unskilled manual labor right now. It's not as if we are undergoing massive industrial growth and are desperate for strong backs to man the assembly lines.

We have over 10% unemployment (much higher if you look at the unadjusted rate). Given that reality there is no logic to justify maintaining and expanding on a population of illegal manual laborers.

[AlphaCentauri]

6. The existing system rewards those who do it legally

people who has never contributed to SS or pay taxes get all benefits instantly while those who are already here paying taxes illegally are contributing to the government parquets.

You may have a point on your second paragraph, it is better to give them the opportunity of doing it legally.

[JonQ]

7. If we were to make a concerted effort

to identify and remove them and penalize employers they wouldn't be recieving any benefits here, or paying taxes here, which is fine by me. Instead minimum wage americans would get the jobs, and pay taxes and not send the money to mexico.

[AlphaCentauri]

8. The problem now is that they are here

the new law would cover all future immigration

[Crzyrussell]

9. If you make it hard for them

to find jobs they will go home on their own. It is happening now. We don't need to add more people to the worker pool when there aren't enough jobs as it is.

[AlphaCentauri]

11. Then it would be like stilling their money

not just their cheap labor, as worker they should be entitle to the benefits of their contribution. If they decide to go then the government should give them back all the money it took from them in taxes and other contributions.

[Crzyrussell]

16. IF they lived here

then the tax money paid supported the services they used.. ie the roads, the schools, fire and police coverage...

It is not stealing from them.

[AlphaCentauri]

23. Their contribution is much larger than the services they use

Trickle down or trickle up economics show us that they support the upper classes. A middle class person hiring illegals can drive a US made car with the money they save paying cheap services and labor, so buying the US made auto give a job to other middle class individuals who work in the US auto manufacturing.
It is an economic chain.

[Crzyrussell]

28. That is

total BS. Buying a car with the money from illegal immigrant labor?

[AlphaCentauri]

66. why not?

[Romulox]

35. This is obviously not true. nt

[JonQ]

27. We could remove them

it is possible.

Kick them out, while reforming our immigration processes, and strengthening the border, and punishing those who hire illegals. Make it easier for people to become citizens, but kick them out if they're here illegally and first go through the proper channels.

[Kali]

40. we could put them in box cars and send them to camps too

[JonQ]

43. And godwinned

thanks for playing, pick up your prize on the way out.

[Kali]

59. ...

:rofl:

[pampango]

44. "He dismissed the suggestion to deport all illegal immigrants as “talk-show chatter.""

And RW talk show chatter, at that.

We might agree, though, about reforming the immigration process. If we forcibly deported 10 million illegal immigrants (assuming for a moment that was morally, practically and financially feasible) and at the same time increased the number of legal immigrants by 10 million, that would prove that we welcomed immigrants, just not illegal ones. Most people who complain about illegal immigrants though, aren't really excited about more legal immigrants either. Turns out that with many of them, perhaps not you, the "immigrant" part of "illegal immigrant" is as scary as the "illegal" part.

[JonQ]

47. He can call it that

and dismiss it if he likes.

Doesn't make it true.

"Turns out that with many of them, perhaps not you, the "immigrant" part of "illegal immigrant" is as scary as the "illegal" part."

Then let's remove the illegals and see if they have the same response when immigrants continue to come here legally.

[pampango]

48. The history of immigration in the US is that immigrants almost always met resistance from those who

preceded them. Witness the Irish, the Chinese, etc. The fact that they were "legal" did not mean that they were welcome.

When millions of African-Americans migrated from the South to the North and West, they were met with resentment and discrimination, because they were viewed by white workers as competition for jobs and housing and as having a depressing effect on wages. They were citizens and therefore legal, but they were far from welcome.

"Then let's remove the illegals and see if they have the same response when immigrants continue to come here legally." - No, let's agree to remove these people (assuming one decides that it is morally, financially and practically feasible), if and only if we agree to increase legal immigration by a similar amount. That would show that we are not afraid of immigrants; we just don't want them to be illegal.

[JonQ]

69. They also came here legally

and they came at a time when millions of unskilled laborers were necessary.

"No, let's agree to remove these people (assuming one decides that it is morally, financially and practically feasible), if and only if we agree to increase legal immigration by a similar amount. That would show that we are not afraid of immigrants; we just don't want them to be illegal."

Why do we need to compensate for removing illegals by replacing them with legal immigrants? We should limit immigration, as we don't need millions of new citizens. We shouldn't completely shut our borders to all immigrants, but we don't need to replace the 10-20 million illegals with new immigrants immediately. What's the point? To show the world that the country built on immigration allows immigration? Let them reform their immigration laws first before they cast a stone at ours.

[pampango]

70. I agree they came here legally, indeed made that point in my post, that doesn't mean they were

welcomed by the immigrants (now citizens) who preceded them.

"Why do we need to compensate for removing illegals by replacing them with legal immigrants?" - The point of my hypothetical "replacing illegal immigrants with legal ones" (obviously not a policy that could or should ever be enacted) was to show that many people who bemoan the presence of 10 million "illegal immigrants" are as concerned about "immigrants" as about "illegal".

You are quite honest and forthright about "shut(ting) our borders to all immigrants" (not completely), legal or illegal, so the scenario proves nothing for you. It is meant for folks who may complain about "illegal", "illegal", "illegal", when they may really mean to complain about "immigrants", "immigrants", and "immigrants". That's not you since you are upfront about "immigrants". You and I just disagree.

"We should limit immigration, as we don't need millions of new citizens." - My guess is that has been said throughout our history (except maybe for the Pilgrims and later by factory owners, railroad barons, etc.). Immigrants, whether they were Irish, Italian, German, Chinese or Mexican has always been viewed as a threat or burden by the people who preceded them and became Americans. We may look back now and view the contributions of those immigrants and their descendants with pride, but in real time they were viewed as threats to jobs, wages, and the culture by most.

[Romulox]

54. Hi pampango. I agree with you that forcible deportation is unworkable

and undesirable even if it were. Migrants tend to return home when works dries up, so I prefer to target their employers.

Do you agree with my statement?

"Most people who complain about illegal immigrants though, aren't really excited about more legal immigrants either."

Which part of "greatest level of unemployment since the great depression" eludes you? Where do you suggest the US should employ millions of additional unskilled laborers? :shrug:

[pampango]

57. How you doing Romulux? I agree with the statement you referred to. The report in the OP

includes several points regarding steps that should be taken to make sure that only legal workers are hired - ID cards, E-verify, border security, etc. I think the DU's report is balanced and will please neither the anti-immigrant nor pro-immigrant zealots.

"Which part of "greatest level of unemployment since the great depression" eludes you?" - Actually it is the greatest level of unemployment since the Reagan recession in 1982.

But to your larger point, you probably know that less than half of the illegal immigrants are unskilled laborers (though most of those who walk across the desert are just that). More importantly you look at immigrants as a burden and a threat. I look at them as an asset, a part of our culture and economy that has always been a source of strength for the US. Historically, immigrants have never been popular in real time, each generation views them as a threat, a burden and as "others", not one of "us". Only in retrospect do we view our diversity as a strength.

Unemployment was much lower in 2007, but there was still a widespread fear that immigrants would take jobs and depress wages, so some progressive opposed immigration reform then. If you had asked the residents of Boston about immigration 200 years ago, they would have probably told you the same thing about the Irish were a burden and a threat to jobs and wages. They were "them" not "us".

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

45. +1 billion

It took me a whopping 14 years to get a green card, all the while paying out of state tuition as a legal immigrant and my father paying taxes, as I couldn't work without a work authorization. And it ONLY took 14 years because I ended up marrying a U.S. citizen.

It would have taken longer had I not done so.

10 years is nothing compared to how long legal immigrants have to wait or what we pay in fees and BS.

[AlphaCentauri]

67. Did you stay out of the US for 14 years to migrate legally?

[treestar]

51. that's a myth

The "line" is only for those lucky enough to get into it. They have to fall into very restrictive categories. So if there is no way to be in the line, there's nothing to wait for.

Why Don’t They Just Get In Line? The Real Story of Getting a “Green Card” and Coming to the U.S. Legally

[Kali]

61. um excuse me, but facts aren't allowed in these discussions

those bastards ARE BREAKING THE LAW, don't you know?

apparently I may need to add this for the impaired: :sarcasm:


Crazy how law-and-order some "DUers" are.

[AlphaCentauri]

68. +1

[Kali]

3. mandatory language seems stupid to me

the migrants I know are highly motivated to learn English, even the super poor first timers that get lost and stop by for help want to try whatever little bit of English they have. Sometimes it is difficult to practice my Spanish;-)

[Crzyrussell]

10. Whre do you live?

In California they get offended if a business doesn't have a Spanish speaker available to cater to them and all of your forms must be in spaish or you are labeled a racist.

[AlphaCentauri]

12. In Europe you'll find people speaking 7 languages

nobody bothers about it.

[WriteDown]

17. You will?

I'm fairly sure that in Germany the official language is German. And the French will not even use words that are not French in origin. Ever hear of the culture ministry?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2003/jul/21/france.internationalnews

[Kali]

18. bullshit

"And the French will not even use words that are not French in origin."

:rofl: :rofl:

Been there a lot, have you? Again, maybe it's YOUR attitude that makes people behave in your preconceived notion...

[WriteDown]

19. Did you read the link?

I'll give you a taste

"The culture ministry has announced a ban on the use of the word email in all government ministries, documents, publications or websites, in the latest step to stem an incursion of English words into the French lexicon"

You're lack of knowledge is astounding.

Here's another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_France

Why are people SOOOOO scared of an official language for the US. Seems to have worked in Europe.

[TheCML]

21. "Seems to have worked in Europe."

Did you bother accounting for Belgium, Finland, and Switzerland all of which have multiple recognized official languages? There are more, but you get the point.

[WriteDown]

22. So instead of following the major countries with the best healthcare in the

world such as Germany and France, you wan to follow the Swiss. Didn't they just grant bail to Roman Polanski?

More things that you'll only see in a truly progressive nation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_France

"In 2006 a French subsidiary of a US company was fined €500,000 plus an ongoing fine of €20,000 per day for providing software and related technical documentation to its employees in the English language only"

[TheCML]

24. Im sorry.

What does Roman Polanski and health care have to do with the topic at hand? Are you somehow saying the more xenophobic a country is the better their health care infrastructure becomes, you lost me.

[WriteDown]

25. Just because you have an official language does not make you xenophobic...

Thanks for outlining the very essence of the issue. I'm saying that citizen unity and a recognized language are good things.

[TheCML]

29. Great.

Im glad we could finally get to that. Really more than anything im indifferent about it. Spanish was spoken here before English, and there are still Spanish speaking families here today that have been here for hundreds of years, there are still families that speak French, I would like to see that make a resurgence. Citizen Unity and a recognized language are two totally different things, I would like to see people unify around a lot of things, but a language is not one of them. As time goes on more Hispanic immigrants will learn English, and more Anglo Americans will learn Spanish, im not threatened by it, I think its great.

[WriteDown]

33. My people's language was spoken thousands of years

before any of those, but I don't think or hope that it will make a resurgence. (Too hard). Other languages are great and should be spoken, but there needs to be a common form of communication that all people know. If you want to learn English AND Spanish, then great or English and French that is great too. Its not a matter of a threat, but a matter of effective communication.

[Romulox]

39. The Spanish came here as conquerors. That's why their language was spoken here.

What is the morality of the language of one conqueror displacing the language of the previous conqueror? :shrug:

[Kali]

26. the comment was "the French" not some bureaucracy of the govt.

my knowledge is direct from actual human beings, not cherry-picked bullshit that confirms my xenophobia

I don't have FEAR of "official language" I have fear of "OFFICIAL" anything - especially as it always seems to be used to dehumanize and segregate PEOPLE.

[WriteDown]

30. Ah....

anecdotal evidence. The hallmark of credibility. So if the US establishes an official language, they the "people" will be allowed to do the same as the French and you should have no problem.

What other kind of OFFICIAL do you fear? OFFICIAL safety gear? OFFICIAL Medicine? OFFICIAL US dollars?

[Kali]

34. all of my comments in this thread were anecdotal

all I was doing was stating my experience

is that really a problem?

are "OFFICIAL safety gear? OFFICIAL Medicine? OFFICIAL US dollars?" used to discriminate and deny human dignity to people? Well those dollars are sometimes, but maybe you could try to actually get the point. Oh yeah it involves compassion over "law and order" - nevermind we've done that circle jerk before.

[WriteDown]

36. Having an OFFICIAL language...

does not deny anyone's dignity. If you're dignity is so tied to your native language then you probably should never travel. When I am in Europe, I never expect them to speak English even though my German and Czech are awful.

[Kali]

62. its not HAVING the official language

it is the way it is implemented or used against people by bigots and xenophobes

[WriteDown]

63. Its fairly simple...

You have an official language. If someone wants to become a citizen they are required to take lessons and pass a test. Works in most countries.

[Romulox]

32. The context was obviously the French government. nt

[TheCML]

13. Really?

Who is "they"? Every single Hispanic in the state of California? Somehow I doubt this.

[Crzyrussell]

15. The activst/ social groups...

at times they are so in for face. My sister in law doesn't speak English, doesn't want to learn and wants everybody to cater to her needs in her language. I know a lot of people in the immigrant community (most illegal) and that attitude is prevalent around here.

[Kali]

14. that doesn't mean they don't know English

your attitude may be why some act like you portray, but "they" aren't all like that.

[treestar]

65. How often has this happened?

I don't mind having official languages, but I think Spanish should be included as one of ours.

[mamaleah]

52. If they ever want to leave Cali, knowing English will be helpful.

But why insist anyone learn English. Countries with official languages just must all be fascist, evil places.

[Kali]

60. WTF?

"Countries with official languages just must all be fascist, evil places."

I'm sure some are some aren't. I just don't think it is that important and it IS used to discriminate so it would be better to not impose it.

[pampango]

20. "People on both “extremes" of the issue would be unhappy with the report".

How true.

Many of the points in the report seem likely to be included in Obama's immigration reform proposal if, indeed, it comes out next year. His past statements indicate that he's not interested in sending them home, either forcibly or voluntarily, but in providing with a path to citizenship. He also seems determined to enforce the law against employers who hire illegal workers.

Obama will undoubtedly get caught between immigration advocates and the "send them all home now" side, but I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't come up with a proposal that is somewhere in the middle and is quite similar to this DU report.

[Romulox]

31. It seems to give cheap labor advocates everything they want, so I dispute that. nt

[pampango]

37. Those advocates would prefer things the way they are now with millions of undocumented, exploitable

workers. My guess is those advocates will seek to undermine any immigration reform to keep things the way they are now. It worked for them in 2007.

[Romulox]

38. No. Cheap labor advocates want an ever increasing supply of cheap labor.

They know damn well that the "pull" of amnesty will provide exponential growth in the supply of illegal labor.

This is precisely what happened following the last amnesty. :hi:

[pampango]

41. Uh-oh, the dreaded "amnesty", the RW's favorite term during immigration debates.

Rush, Glenn and Lou (well, maybe not him any more) always boil immigration reform down to "amnesty". Who knows how many times we'll hear that on talk radio, republican speeches in congress, and teabaggers at town hall meetings.

The "pull" of jobs is what draws illegal labor, not the possibility of earning citizenship every 20 or 30 years. Earned citizenship may be "icing on the cake" but the job is the cake that draws them here. I doubt that most of the people walking across the desert have a multi-decade time horizon on their minds. They are looking for a job tomorrow.

Implementing some of the policies in this report, e.g. employment ID cards, mandatory use of E-verify and strengthening border security, would do more to diminish the "pull" of jobs than the granting of the "a" word will do to increase it.

[Romulox]

42. Amnesty is a legal term of art. This is its proper use.

Nice indictment by association, btw.

Your position is held by George W. Bush, the US Chamber of Commerce, Cargill, that kosher slaughterhouse employing all the children, et al.

Plenty of fleas in your bed. :hi:

[pampango]

46. I'll take back my criticism of Rush and the boys then. They are linguists after all.

You might want to check with the Chamber. When Obama's immigration reform ideas were discussed earlier this year, they didn't include a guest worker program which was in the 2007 reform. At that time, the Chamber jumped off the reform bandwagon as driven by Obama.

I have no idea what Georgie boy or Cargill think about Obama's reform ideas (nice indictment by association, though), but the AFL-CIO and Change to Win did endorse his immigration ideas this spring.

Change to Win And AFL-CIO Unveil Unified Immigration Reform Framework
http://www.changetowin.org/for-the-media/press-releases-and-statements/change-to-win-and-afl-cio-unveil-unified-immigration-reform-framework.html

"The joint announcement and proposal is a critical sign of support for the Administration and Congress to address immigration reform -- and to ensure that it remains a priority on the legislative calendar. It is also an important sign that immigration reform is an important part of economic recovery."

"Sweeney and Hansen also were joined by Eliseo Medina, Executive Vice President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Arturo Rodriquez, President of the United Farm Workers (UFW) in making the announcement. Both Medina and Rodriguez have been national leaders on immigration reform and played a key role in the formation of the immigration framework. "

"The plan adheres to the Administration's goals by creating a framework that deals with the critical components of reform and does it through interconnected initiatives. The proposal calls for: (1) an independent commission to assess and manage future flows, based on labor market shortages that are determined on the basis of actual need; (2) a secure and effective worker authorization mechanism; (3) rational operational control of the border; (4) adjustment of status for the current undocumented population; and (5) improvement, not expansion, of temporary worker programs, limited to temporary or seasonal, not permanent, jobs."

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pampango]

55. Au contraire. I agree with Change to Win And the AFL-CIO. You may side with US COC on this one,

since you seem interested in shooting down reform.

When in doubt make your post about the other poster rather than the topic.

"Your subject line is gibberish."-Criticism accepted. Not my best subject line but not surprising given my writing skill. :)

"And you know damn well that you agree with the US COC on this."-I try to avoid telling you and other what you know and don't know, but you may know that the US COC opposes Obama on his immigration reform framework that Change to Win And the AFL-CIO support.

"Finally, you are not present in any threads regarding domestic poverty, but omnipresent on threads advocating for "free trade" and "guest workers"."-I appreciate the suggestion that I am omnipresent anywhere (seems to have a religious overtone though which I'm not sure I deserve ;) ). When I respond to your posts I try to deal with the issues of the OP or that you bring up, rather than your posting tendencies. I'm not sure which is creepier: that you don't see my posts about poverty, health care, progressive taxation, financial market and corporate regulation, as well as trade and immigration, or that you notice it and feel it is worthy of comment when you don't see my posts.

[Romulox]

56. Yes, and up is down, water is dry, and so on. You are an advocate for cheap labor and free trade on

these boards. You have no other cause or ideology.

That is the very soul of the US COC's position. :hi:

[pampango]

58. Yes, oh Wise One. If you say it, it must be true. Tell it to Change to Win and the AFL-CIO.

I agree with them and you agree with the Chamber. But don't let those facts get in the way of a good ol' blast the messenger tactic one more time. You and I may not agree on many things, but I don't question the sincerity of your beliefs or that you have the best interests of working people at heart. If you prefer to stay fixated on your perception of my "cause" or "ideology" rather than responding to ideas, so be it. If it makes your life simpler to cast those with whom you disagree as devotees of evil ideologies, have a simple life.

But I do appreciate the lack of a substantive rebuttal.

[treestar]

50. The ID one is just redundant

It would only be used by employers who want to obey the law and they already do. The one who don't will just carry on as usual.

We would end up like the U.S.S.R., with internal passports determining if we could work or not. Then let the government start deciding other categories of people aren't entitled to work legally - some future Repuke Congress and President could do it.

[Romulox]

53. Precisely. nt

[Blue_Tires]

64. wow...Colorado folks of all people are advocating national ID cards?

let that panel be the first to sign up for it...