Immigration questions

[cosmik debris]

Three questions have puzzled me. What is the real problem with the status quo, what solutions to that problem are in the realm of possibility, and how do we deal with unintended consequences?

Anyone care to enlighten me?

[sui generis]

1. nothing - it's all a political ploy

I think we should stop patrolling the Iraqi border and patrol our own more effectively, because without that no solution is going to be workable for long.

Fences, schmences, but we do need to either be more serious about our borders or else build a highway and charge a toll.

I am for amnesty, against guest worker programs. I am for making citizenship a goal, along with all of its responsibilities.

I am for treating people humanely and fairly and realistically, but NOT for just throwing hands in the air and giving up to the status quo.

[cosmik debris]

2. giving up to the status quo

I would like to hear how you define the problem with the status quo. You can't solve the problem until you define it. Why don't we just leave things like they are?

[Texaroo]

3. The only "problem" I have heard is with national security...

..which makes immigration this year's "gay marriage" political ploy. It's designed to bring bigots to the polls who would otherwise not be engaged in the political process. There ARE problems with the status quo in terms of tax dollars - but I believe there are likely offsets everywhere but in health care and education. And guess what - we don't fund those areas sufficiently anyway, and, according to the 14th Amendment, the education provided is being provided to American citizens for the most part, whose parents may be illegal...

If we were to fix the problems with labor, with health care, and with education, there wouldn't be an immigration issue.

[cosmik debris]

5. You didn't define the problem

What do you mean "in terms of tax dollars"?

What is the problem? What is the solution? How do you deal with unintended consequences?

[Texaroo]

25. I mean, that there are, for example, a disproportionate number of

illegal immigrants that use free clinics, hospital emergency rooms, etc. Those taxes come primarily form hospital district taxation imposed upon property owners. One COULD argue that the taxes are paid through rent, but it's pretty easy to see that there is a disproportionate use.

One COULD argue that any program has disproportionate use (school systems, roads, whatever), but when you are talking about a population that tends not to own property, and who routinely works in the underground, cash-basis economy, the only taxes paid are sales taxes. And there is a substantial amount of money that is flowing to family back home, so that doesn't go into the US economy.

Thus, it is fair to say that the economic models could show a detrimental effect to the US economy.

IMHO, there are entire industries that have grown SOLELY because of immigrant labor (landscaping, for example). How many people had a yard service 15-20 years ago versus today? What would happen if the cheap labor wasn't available? People would do the work themselves. Increasing demand for yard equipment, decreasing demand for other recreational products. Is that detrimental? Maybe not...

Security issues are another matter. If people are able to enter and exit this country essentially at will, and as much as the US is disliked, ther is a potential that a terrorist act could do real harm. However, the nature of terror is that it is primarily symbolic - is it worth immigration reform to POTENTIALLY stop a very public attack upon a small group of Americans?

I say no - but it's an actuarial thing. I would rather put money into law enforcement domestically, where the positive effects went beyond merely protecting against the entry into this country of law-abiding foreign nationals....

[cosmik debris]

26. So you see two problems

Problem one is sharing America's wealth with less fortunate people at their demand rather than our offer. So do we require proof of citizenship before allowing the govt to provide services? What solution do you propose? How do you protect Hispanic citizens from discrimination when they are held to higher standards of proof than Billy Bob or Shaneequa?

Problem two is bad guys coming over the border to do us harm. This one is pretty easy to guess how you would solve it. It requires tighter border security, but how tight and where. If you tighten up at Laredo, the bad guys will come through Presque Isle, Maine. The only people who are prevented from entering the US are the people who want a better life and are willing to work for it. A wall across our southern border will only stop the people who want to contribute to our country, not those who want to hurt us. So do we wall off all of America? What are the economic and social costs of such a policy? What about the divided families--like the Korean border?

It looks to me like these two problems require two different compatible solutions, What do you think? And since all the solutions push the pain onto someone else, who do you want to push the pain onto, and do you want to offer them some relief?

[sui generis]

4. okay here goes

the problem with the status quo is that there is no reason to aim for citizenship. I live in Texas where vast tracts of neighborhoods don't speak a word of english, don't shop outside their neighborhood, live fifteen people to a tiny clapboard house, and have no chance of putting their kids into college or doing anything other than get by selling KFC out of the drive through window.

They don't vote, they are socially disengaged, marginalized, and self-marginalizing. I don't want to claim I know what's best for "them", but I do know that without a reason to want to elevate yourself and participate you stagnate.

If you are "undocumented" you sure won't be working in finance or any position of responsibility, or even have a real bank account. If all you think is that the status quo is fine, then we have a growing status quo problem and not enough housing or medical care or education to offer it until it gets involved and out in the open, and the "status quo" can't do that without social security numbers and credit reports and bank accounts and property ownership and all the other things we take for granted in our social infrastructure.

The status quo IS stagnation.

[cosmik debris]

6. OK, let's see if I got it right

The problem is that we are screwing a large number of people and we shouldn't do that. If we accept that the undocumented immigrants are being victimized, what is the rational solution to that problem? How do we deal with 12 million victims?

[sui generis]

9. you're leading but I have no idea where

the status quo is undocumented. Amnesty, documentation, better management of our borders.

I am the child of an immigrant and a dual citizen myself. Reality is you can't round up 12 million people, whether you call them victims or criminals. Reality is that you can't just ignore the problem and call it "status quo" either.

The problem is that we have to have a cut off somewhere. I want amnesty but I also want a serious look at what our values are with regards to how strictly we enforce our geographical borders. We have 9/10's of our military patrolling Iraq and its borders, let's bring some of those folks back here where they don't have to worry about IED's.

But it's also more complicated than just borders or amnesty; so it's only a tiny piece of the solution, when you consider the economic realities on that side of the border that drive them here to begin with that we refuse to even acknowledge. The problem is, we're not any more serious than they are, and above all, it's a stupid wedge issue right now that I just don't rate very highly.

[cosmik debris]

10. Where I'm leading?

I'm looking for answers to three questions.

You answered the first question by saying we are screwing too many people, and we shouldn't do that.

You answered the second question with tighter border security so there won't be so many people coming over here to get screwed.

The third question was about unintended consequences. Any thoughts there?

[sui generis]

18. look, on the third question nobody has a crystal ball

and I'm not a djinn, except on the weekends.

The answer to your question is there is no reward without risk. The only way to mitigate risk is to understand the specific problems, plan realistically, and to involve the people you are talking about, and to execute and monitor your progress effectively. Those are all administrative tasks that come with the job.

[cosmik debris]

21. Some outcomes are predictable.

To use an example from history, when employer sanctions were tried, they failed because the employers began to discriminate against persons with Hispanic last names. It was less risky to hire an Ebonics speaker than a Spanglish speaker. So for those who support employer sanctions as their solution to their perceived problem, I would ask: "How will you protect Hispanic citizens from discrimination?" Or how will you protect innocent employers who mistakenly accept forged ID cards?

Likewise, if your solution to your perceived problem is to reduce the number of undocumented workers, that would put upward pressure on wages and force many of the marginally profitable agri-businesses out of business. Not to mention restaurants and construction companies. Would you make any attempt to mitigate those consequences?

[sui generis]

22. they're in business because they're taking advantage of below

living cost wages. They won't go out of business if they manage their businesses correctly. If nobody has an advantage then everyone has to raise their prices incrementally to accommodate paying their workers a better wage.

Your arguments seem somewhat naive. First you play with status quo justifications. Then you seem to evolve to see that the status quo doesn't serve the underprivileged, legal or not. Now there is an apparent cost to changing the status quo.

My short answer is yes, there is no change without some degree of adjustment and even short term "pain". But in the long run everyone benefits if you don't have an underclass of underpaid people taken advantage of by businesses who believe they have a greater right to remain in business than their employees have a right to expect fair compensation.

[cosmik debris]

23. I wasn't trying to make an argument for any policy

I was trying to elicit arguments from people who had thought this through. I was trying to determine how thoughtful people deal with the obvious questions that must arise in any discussion of immigration policy. Thank you for your input.

[WolverineDG]

11. If they're undocumented

they won't be selling KFC either. They are working in the fields, or doing construction or yard work or being maids.

When I was a teacher in La Joya, the most motivated students I had were children of undocumented workers as well as students who weren't citizens. They knew what a crap life their parents had & didn't want it for themselves. And there is an incentive for becoming a citizen: you can't get deported if you get on the wrong side of the law. Jails check for immigration status & if you're not a citizen, an immigration "hold" is placed on you. If you are an LPR (greencard holder) you will be deported if you are convicted for a felony.

dg

[cosmik debris]

12. That's three votes for "stop screwing the immigrants"

Would you like to propose a solution? How do we make it better?

[WolverineDG]

13. Here's something that was on the table

before 9/11:

undocumented people living in the US on X-date who have American-born children get green cards, SSN #s & right-to-work authorization. That way, they don't have to have their kids on foodstamps, TANF, & Medicaid. They have to keep their noses clean, work, & not claim any public benefits (similar to the restrictions currently in place for VAWA applicants) for a certain period of time until they can become citizens.

Is that good enough for you?

dg

[cosmik debris]

14. So correct me if I am wrong

You seem to be saying that the solution is to phase some of them into citizenship. But what about the others? And what about future immigrants?

I hope you don't think I am being argumentative. I haven't thought this through, but it seems like a very complex issue and I want to hear what other people think. I am looking for a well thought out explanation of the problem, the solution, and the mitigation. Thanks for your input.

[WolverineDG]

19. It's a start

Obviously, people will continue to take advantage of the 14th Amendment, which entitles everyone born in the US to automatic citizenship. I am for continuing that right, and have no problem with "grandfathering" in the undocumented people who are already here w/American citizen children. Those whose American children are adults can be sponsored for citizenship by that adult child. As for those who come later, :shrug: Haven't thought that out yet.

dg

[cosmik debris]

20. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one

Who hasn't thought this through.

[Avalux]

7. The real problem, IMHO is human rights.

That's not what's being talked about, however. It's a travesty that those who come into this country illegally are then exploited by American companies - paid little and treated as subhuman, some living in slave-like conditions.
How do we deal with it? Start penalizing the employers and putting basic human dignity above making a buck.

[cosmik debris]

8. You seem to agree with sui generis

We are screwing a bunch of people and we ought to stop. So what kind of penalties would you put on employers, and how would you deal with them when they stopped hiring Hispanics because it was too risky? How does that improve the plight of the oppressed? How can you expect employers to bear the cost and burden of enforcing immigration laws?

[crispini]

24. Ok, I'll take a stab at it.

We need to introduce a program that will allow employers to easily verify that their prospective employees are eligible to work. I don't know if this is a website, a phone line, or what.

After that we need to have a phased in program of enforcement and fines.

The fact is that employers who are continually employing people who are not eligible to work in this country are BREAKING THE LAW. I do not expect employers to enforce immigration laws, I expect them to obey the laws of their country.

[cosmik debris]

27. So you see it as a law enforcement problem

And you want to start by enforcing the law on employers.

Now I hate slippery slope arguments, but some might say that you are headed toward a National Identification Card with Biometric encoded data. Have you considered how this could be avoided.

And don't forget the Reagan era "reform" that put the onus on the employers so they simply gave preference to Anglo or African Americans and held Hispanic Americans to higher standards of proof of citizenship.

And there is always upward pressure on wages translated into upward pressure on prices. And then there is the cost and burden to the employers of verifying the legitimacy of their workers. Would you stop the guys standing outside of Home Depot or the people who hire them? How?

Like the "round 'em up and send 'em home" argument, some things are not even in the realm of possibility.

[crispini]

29. You seem to be rather fond of the "reductio ad absurdum."

It seems that you have rejected everything in this thread that people are talking about because, when taken to extremes, it would be bad. However, that is true of almost EVERYTHING in life. If you add a pinch of salt to your soup, it tastes better. If you add a handful of salt, you have ruined the soup.

I think the solution to this problem will lie in a judicious combination of efforts. I have chosen one starting point, but I don't think it's the whole solution by any means.

I for one would like to see some scientific studies about this whole issue rather than what is mostly being done on these boards, which is just guessing and talking out of our asses.

[cosmik debris]

30. I don't reject anything,

I just pointed out known historic or potential problems. Like I said in the OP, I am looking for answer to three questions. And as I told another poster, I am glad I am not the only one who hasn't thought this through. It seems that there are a lot of us who haven't addressed the problem, or dealt with the consequences of proposed solutions. Thanks for your input.

[CoolOnion]

16. Right.

[CoolOnion]

15. It's all about greed

Ever since the end of slavery in the U.S., greedy capitalist extremists have been looking for ways to make the most profit for themselves by exploiting immigrant labor. Right now, people from Mexico are brought to the U.S. in unairconditioned trucks, housed in squalid conditions; it's no different than when the Pullman Palace Car Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike)kept its workers in "debt slavery" by charging them rent plus expenses to live in company housing.

The argument that immigrants are doing jobs that the rest of us won't do is bullshit. To end illegal immigration, we need to fight for a minimum wage that keeps pace with the cost of living, and demand that these greedy CEOs take less of the pie for themselves. Right now, the average CEO is making 400% more than the average worker; right now, the hotel industry, the landscaping industry, et al is telling us that we'll have to pay more for goods and services if we get rid of illegal immigrants who will work for less. Let's look at the books and find out how much the CEOs are getting before we accept that argument.

And let's face it, some businesses we absolutely do not need--those f***ing ice cream trucks, for instance. The little push carts are fine, but those big noisy trucks that play obnoxious songs, selling overpriced ice cream to poor kids--those things can go any old time now.

[cosmik debris]

17. So the problem is exploitation of workers

How do you propose to solve that problem? What legislative agenda do you believe is reasonable to protect undocumented workers? How will it impact others?

[cosmik debris]

28. I think I found one answer.

THE PROBLEM IS: We are exploiting them and they are exploiting us. There seems to be a perception of inequity in the current rate of exchange for exploitation. The inequity you see depends on whether you look at them or look at us. Sui Generis sees the immigrants as being the holders of the short end of the wishbone, while Texaroo points out that the taxpayers are being used unkindly. But the whole problem boils down to the perception of equity in a socio-economic relationship.

SO THE SOLUTION IS: Well, I am still working on that, but obviously it would require renegotiation of the current contract with the taxpayers and the immigrants. We can't do it unilaterally, and we can't do it by act of congress. And if our goal is to minimize the inequity in the bargain, we may already be at the best place we can hope to achieve. It is certainly better now than it would be under the House Republican plan.