New Imigration Reform

[Taem]

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-08-30-voa19.cfm

This new tough stance on illegal immigrants is really going to be tough on our businesses in California; our restaurants (the one's I help manage) have about a 50% mix of illegals with fake SS cards.

I find myself wanting to take up a "tough-guy" stance and saying, "hey, 'illegal-alien' is coined 'illegal' for a reason dammit!" They ILLEGALLY crossed the boarder and obtained ILLEGAL identification cards; not cool!

But on the other side of the coin, I know most of these people and they are hard workers who only want to make a buck. I see several problems:

1) A young girl works for us but was born in Mexico. She was taken to the states at 2 months old and has only ever known what it's like to live in California. Once they start enforcing these imigration laws, shes screwed and won't be able to find work - she'll have to go to Mexico where she doesn't know anyone!

2) Some other ladies who work for us are legal and have children with men who are illegal but support them. They have bought cars and even houses together. Once their husbands must return to Mexico for work, these families will be split and the mothers and children will be forced to collect on Welfare, further hurting our country.

3) Also, I have ladies who work for us who are illegal but have children born in the states who are citizens. How the hell will this immigration enforcement affect these children? I heard recently of factories in Texas that were raided and the illegal workers deported, however women with children born here in America were allowed to stay for "ethical" reasons. Obviously this is a gray area; have a kid and stay in the country...

4) I have a good friend whom I grew up with that was born in Mexico and have lived in this country since 2 years old. He petitions for citizenship every year, but has not been granted citizenship. He has passed all the immigration tests proving he knows about our country, has graduated from our high schools and colleges, is a manager for a popular restaurant chain here in Santa Barbara, has not been convicted of any crimes (in our country or Mexico), and has children born here, but has still have not received his citizenship! Who the hell is getting citizenship? The system is broken!!!

IMO, the only way to do this hard-lined immigration reform correctly is to give everyone here now illegally either citizenship or a work visa, get them all documented now! Once this is done, enact any boarder expanding/security laws and business penalties for hiring illegals once you have given everyone a chance! The fact is our country should have done something about this "problem" decades ago, but failed! Starting up by laying down the hammer after "allowing" this situation to stem for so long is definitely the WRONG way to go about handling this situation!

EDIT: Proofreading!

[kandrathe]

I find myself wanting to take up a "tough-guy" stance and saying, "hey, 'illegal-alien' is coined 'illegal' for a reason dammit!" They ILLEGALLY crossed the boarder and obtained ILLEGAL identification cards; not cool!

But on the other side of the coin, I know most of these people and they are hard workers who only want to make a buck.

Doing the right thing usually flies into the face of personal anecdote. Bootleggers and Mafiosos are also hard working family oriented people who ignore the laws to be able to make more money than they otherwise would if they remained law abiding. Which laws can be ignored in order to earn money for your family? Who would you rather see employed, your son or your friend from south of the border? In a world of limited resources, there will always be the attraction to American abundance. Even a large pie can only be cut into a finite number of slices. Someone will win, and others will lose. Immigration laws favor those people who bring the most to our society. It is very easy for a doctor or nurse from Mexico to legally immigrate, so I would counsel your friends to seek their educations in Mexico, or elsewhere in central America first.

I have probably disclosed this before, but I am descended of legal immigrants, however that was a time when America had vast expanses of land liberated from the natives which they wanted settled (again for political purposes trying to influence national party balances of power). Hard working immigrants from destitute areas of Europe were targeted by the US government for a planned migration to northern states, they made it difficult and many of my ancestors died trying. The first ones here built houses from sod and lived in holes in the ground many miles from any organized town. They built their farms up from nothing, raised families, built towns, schools, and helped each other survive. Many of them were involved in WWI. I have researched and found numerous incidents in my ancestry where both parents died with children redistributed, or where entire families were wiped out. The next generation now spoke the native language, and most of them graduated from high school, or even college. Their children were born around the depression, and when older most fought in WWII, or Korea. Most of them were either blue collar skilled laborers or middle class professionals. My generation had it easy, and almost all of my siblings, cousins, and relatives my age have a college education and are successful upper middle class professionals.

I have friends all over the world and some have decided to become citizens. They do complain about how hard it is, but therein lies the value. Something easily obtained is cheapened. I don't want there to be a fast track to citizenship, and I would agree we should reserve that right to those people who really desire it and who have contributed or have the ability to contribute to our society. The illegals I know in the San Diego/Santa Barbara area usually actually drain resources, and funnel their earnings back to their families in their origin countries. If you want cheap labor to be imported from third world countries, then develop and regulate a guest worker program without the promise of citizenship.

[Jester]

Doing the right thing usually flies into the face of personal anecdote.

[...]

The illegals I know in the San Diego/Santa Barbara area usually actually drain resources, and funnel their earnings back to their families in their origin countries.

Am I wrong to find this rather amusing?

-Jester

[NuurAbSaal]

EDIT: Sorry, should have been a reply to kandrathe's post.

Am I wrong to find this rather amusing?

-Jester

Hmm, I thought that was how redistribution from rich to poor happened, in reality. We (western industrial nations) have a crapload, make that CRAPLOAD more money, resources, everything than people who were unfortunate to be born in the wrong country. We (our countries) waste millions upon millions of euros/dollars by mismanagement etc. and thousands of tons of food rot before they get eaten.

Well, such is the way of the world. But to complain about illegal immigrants being a drain on society... Bleh. Yes they are, yes it's illegal, yes, there are better ways to help those people or countries less fortunate than ourselves. Just nobody does it. Or only pretends to be oh so concerned with the wellbeing of others.

But the solution is easy: Get rid of injustice! Fixed <_<

I found the phrase

however that was a time when America had vast expanses of land liberated from the natives

to be hilarious. A to-the-core cynic like myself can only /bow to that one.


take care
Tarabulus

[eppie]

EDIT: Sorry, should have been a reply to kandrathe's post.
Hmm, I thought that was how redistribution from rich to poor happened, in reality. We (western industrial nations) have a crapload, make that CRAPLOAD more money, resources, everything than people who were unfortunate to be born in the wrong country. We (our countries) waste millions upon millions of euros/dollars by mismanagement etc. and thousands of tons of food rot before they get eaten.

Well, such is the way of the world. But to complain about illegal immigrants being a drain on society... Bleh. Yes they are, yes it's illegal, yes, there are better ways to help those people or countries less fortunate than ourselves. Just nobody does it. Or only pretends to be oh so concerned with the wellbeing of others.

I agree with this.

Also I think many of the illegal immigrants play an important role in the economy. They work hard in jobs that nobody wants AND they do it without having the right on social benefits, because they are illegal.
I don't think that the economic impact of having illegal immigrants is so negative, probably it even is positive.
The other issue (related) is the problem of industries moving to cheap labout countries to have their work done. People complain about this, but the other possibility is bankrupcy for these big companies, and nobody benefits from that.

The point I am trying to make is that globalisation works in two ways. We in the west have more possibilities of finding the cheapest way of getting our nice things produced, but people from those porer country's also want a share of the goodies, and I can't blame them.

[Jester]

I agree with Eppie here: Aren't we all assuming, rather than demonstrating, that illegal immigrants constitute a drain on the economy of the US?

I suspect that they are a slight net surplus, even in terms of tax dollars generated vs. consumed.

-Jester

[oldmandennis]

I agree with Eppie here: Aren't we all assuming, rather than demonstrating, that illegal immigrants constitute a drain on the economy of the US?

I suspect that they are a slight net surplus, even in terms of tax dollars generated vs. consumed.

-Jester

True you can't just assume that they are a liability. It's beyond the capacity of even the best statistician to figure it out.

And the impact is much much more then just tax dollars in vs tax dollars out. You have a whole second generation of people who substantially underperform the general population in school - chances are very high that they will **in general** underperform socially the rest of their life - less likely to go to college, lower average income, etc.. Also, there is a very real social cost to the rest of the students in a school when a sizable minority has poor to nonexistant English skills.

Then there is health care - 4$/hour lettuce pickers cannot possibly afford US style health care. Instead they go to ER's for flus and other inappropriate things, and people who have paid into the system and have real emergencies face 8hr waits. I don't know what the real solution to healthcare is (and lord knows we need one), but adding 12-20 million low income people who speak marginal English can't possibly be good for it.

They also represent a huge "unfunded liability" for retirement benefits. I haven't seen any actual research, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that very few are sitting on big 401k's. All the SS taxes they have paid (when they pay them - many don't) are going to somebody else. Adding them to the SS system would further destabilize a system already heading for big trouble. Not that SS can really support somebody.

Amnesty now, and then enforcement like the OP wants has a certain logical and humanitarian ring to it, but faces a very real historical hurdle - it was tried in '85 and failed miserably. The prospect of amnesty sets off a land rush of people attempting to gain it, while the enforcement provisions are chipped away by business and immigrant groups. Do you have any solution for the mistakes of the past, other then "This time, no fooling, no tricksies, for ever and ever, we really mean business on enforcement"? And do you have any reason why poor Latin Americans would believe you even if you called no tricksies?

[Chesspiece_face]

I agree with Eppie here: Aren't we all assuming, rather than demonstrating, that illegal immigrants constitute a drain on the economy of the US?

I suspect that they are a slight net surplus, even in terms of tax dollars generated vs. consumed.

-Jester

There is a good reason why despite all the anti-illegal immigrant posturing by many political groups the real people in power (both democrat and republicans) support what these groups label "amnesty".

Two words: Cheap Labor. The vast expanse of the american economy is built upon it. in fact it wouldn't be too cynical to say that is what america's main production was: Labor. And supply and demand are at work there too. The more laborers you have the less you need to pay them.

Which brings up a large fallacy I see within kandrathe's reasoning. K has consistantly supported a strong pro-capitalist ideology yet when you get right down to it the end effect of strong anti-illegal immigration laws/enforcement is just a long way of corporate regulation. The corporations want cheap labor, immigrants (illegal or legal) want to give it to them. These laws whether they are framed as anti-illegal immigration or out in the open regulation end up having the same effect: the US saying "nope, you can't do that". The only difference in the end result is that with open regulation responsibility is placed on the corporations and with anti-illegal immigration the responsibility is placed on the laborer.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I find the entire notion of borders... Questionable when it comes to labour.

Namely, because they do not apply to employers - corporations. If I'm an employer, the demand for labour, I can open up shop anywhere - with no regard to borders. Yet, when I am an employee, the supply of labour, I am very much restricted by them. I can't move down to the states, and work there. I can't move over to India, and work there, assuming I'd want to. Yet, were I a corporation, opening up a foreign branch would just be a question of money.

Work is a two-part tango, and something about that doesn't seem wholly right.

[oldmandennis]

Two words: Cheap Labor. The vast expanse of the american economy is built upon it. in fact it wouldn't be too cynical to say that is what america's main production was: Labor.

I wouldn't agree with that. Most of what our country does well, the things that drive the economy, are run by technical middle and upperclass people. All of the high tech sector, entertainment, pharmaceuticals, financial services, large scale grain farming, weaponry - these are the things we provide to the world in exchange for cars, tv's and toys. None of those industries rely on *illegal* immigrants. If the illegals disappeared and the price of lettuce and apples quadrupled, people would grumble and perhaps not eat as healthy, but the key industries would keep working.

I find the entire notion of borders... Questionable when it comes to labour.
Namely, because they do not apply to employers - corporations.

So are you advocating that corporations not be allowed to open branches in your country? Or that your country should open its borders to workers?

[kandrathe]

There is a good reason why despite all the anti-illegal immigrant posturing by many political groups the real people in power (both democrat and republicans) support what these groups label "amnesty".

Two words: Cheap Labor. The vast expanse of the american economy is built upon it. in fact it wouldn't be too cynical to say that is what america's main production was: Labor. And supply and demand are at work there too. The more laborers you have the less you need to pay them.

Which brings up a large fallacy I see within kandrathe's reasoning. K has consistantly supported a strong pro-capitalist ideology yet when you get right down to it the end effect of strong anti-illegal immigration laws/enforcement is just a long way of corporate regulation. The corporations want cheap labor, immigrants (illegal or legal) want to give it to them. These laws whether they are framed as anti-illegal immigration or out in the open regulation end up having the same effect: the US saying "nope, you can't do that". The only difference in the end result is that with open regulation responsibility is placed on the corporations and with anti-illegal immigration the responsibility is placed on the laborer.

I am not against cheap labor. A guest worker program that is organized with documented workers achieves that.

What the political parties want are more registered voters. And, some want to expand the Federal government by adding 10 million more people to social welfare programs, free education, and eventually the tax roles. My point is that we should target immigration leading to citizenship for people that are already able to contribute to the economy and pay their fair share or those who join the armed forces and pre-pay their debt to our country, rather than those who will languish for generations below the poverty line. Also, the Democrats are hoping that they can pull in the traditional "labor" vote, and the Republicans are hoping they can pull in the hispanic religious catholic conservative family values voters.

[kandrathe]

I agree with this.

Also I think many of the illegal immigrants play an important role in the economy. They work hard in jobs that nobody wants AND they do it without having the right on social benefits, because they are illegal.
I don't think that the economic impact of having illegal immigrants is so negative, probably it even is positive.
The other issue (related) is the problem of industries moving to cheap labout countries to have their work done. People complain about this, but the other possibility is bankrupcy for these big companies, and nobody benefits from that.

The point I am trying to make is that globalisation works in two ways. We in the west have more possibilities of finding the cheapest way of getting our nice things produced, but people from those porer country's also want a share of the goodies, and I can't blame them.

Labor in a Capitalist economy is also a supply and demand resouce. If you flood the supply of welders the wage drops and welding schools go out of business. If the supply dries up, suddenly welders are making a living wage and VoTec schools are producing more of them until the supply equalizes with demand. Unskilled illegal labor, such as that brought across the border, fuels a cash based black market economy that is mostly unsafe and unregulated. Society requires an agreed upon basic set of laws. All I am advocating is for existing immigration laws to be enforced at all levels of government. We DO live in a world with borders and increasingly fences to keep the borders, so until we have free travel visas to live and work wherever we like, and corresponding global employment laws, we will need to work within the limitations of what exists.

For example, the 18th Street gang in LA hires and imports illegals to sell their drugs. These illegal immigrant drug pushers are not gang members, they just work for them. So, while the cliche is the hispanic gardener, maid, crop picker, or nanny making $2 an hour, the reality of the range of jobs held by illegal workers is more diverse and sinister.

[Swiss Mercenary]

So are you advocating that corporations not be allowed to open branches in your country? Or that your country should open its borders to workers?

I'm saying that somethng doesn't seem quite right there, at least to me. Not that there's a simple, obvious, and no doubt wrong 'solution' that we should take tomorrow.

The illegals I know in the San Diego/Santa Barbara area usually actually drain resources, and funnel their earnings back to their families in their origin countries.

Speaking of which, why do none of us see anything wrong with companies in the business of resource exploration/exploitation (Or just about any sort of non-renewable practice, really) draining a region's natural resources, and funneling their earnings back to their executives/shareholders in their origin countries?

Can't have it both ways, there.

[Jester]

Labor in a Capitalist economy is also a supply and demand resouce. If you flood the supply of welders the wage drops and welding schools go out of business. If the supply dries up, suddenly welders are making a living wage and VoTec schools are producing more of them until the supply equalizes with demand.

(Edit: Hm. Not quite, edited out.)

So? More labour benefits the economy as a whole. People moved out of job X move into job Y. Consumers get goods and services for cheaper. This is just the basic functioning of the free market.

For example, the 18th Street gang in LA hires and imports illegals to sell their drugs. These illegal immigrant drug pushers are not gang members, they just work for them. So, while the cliche is the hispanic gardener, maid, crop picker, or nanny making $2 an hour, the reality of the range of jobs held by illegal workers is more diverse and sinister.

Could you name a sizeable group of people who are not, in some measure, involved in the drug trade? I don't think this is problem is particular to illegals, and studies seem to show that their levels of criminality are actually lower than the general population.

-Jester

[Jester]

My point is that we should target immigration leading to citizenship for people that are already able to contribute to the economy and pay their fair share or those who join the armed forces and pre-pay their debt to our country, rather than those who will languish for generations below the poverty line.

The evidence appears to indicate that they are pulling their own weight. By and large, they work long hours at crappy jobs producing things for American businesses. They do this because wages in Mexico at the bottom are terrible.

What does it matter, from a libertarian perspective, that they will be poor for generations? They are not 'languishing.' They are becoming the working poor. But if they choose that, that's their choice. They make it based on their perspective, not yours.

If the argument is simply legalistic, that 'these are the rules, and they should be followed because they are the rules', then fine. But that argument is not the same as the ones you're making.

-Jester

[Taem]

I find the entire notion of borders... Questionable when it comes to labour.

Namely, because they do not apply to employers - corporations. If I'm an employer, the demand for labour, I can open up shop anywhere - with no regard to borders. Yet, when I am an employee, the supply of labour, I am very much restricted by them. I can't move down to the states, and work there. I can't move over to India, and work there, assuming I'd want to. Yet, were I a corporation, opening up a foreign branch would just be a question of money.

Work is a two-part tango, and something about that doesn't seem wholly right.

This is another problem for our resturants, and I'm sure many other businesses. Illegals have "illegal" paperwork that looks legit. There really is no way currently to know rather they are really legal or illegal; until the government comes up with a better system for keeping track of aliens with green-cards/visas, fining the employers is ridicilous IMO. And if someone does come up as illegal, they have 90-days to clear their name or leave and guess what? I'm betting they [illegals] will simply get a new SS number somewhere and change their name on a new W4/I9 form. I have a feeling this reform won't stop anything in the long run - there has to be a better way of going about this who situation...

[--Pete]

Hi,

I find the entire notion of borders... Questionable when it comes to labour.

Then, maybe, you need to think of it a little more. Such as:

Workers in Mexico can't pick my tomatos in California -- nor can I move the fields.

Unless my factory is located at a border, it's is unfeasible for aliens to live in their country and work in my plant. And shutting down the existing plant to build one elsewhere may be more than I can afford.

Neither the cleaning of my house nor the maintenence of my yard can be located where I don't live.

Other examples would probably come to mind with a little reflection.

--Pete

[Swiss Mercenary]

Hi,
Then, maybe, you need to think of it a little more. Such as:

Workers in Mexico can't pick my tomatos in California -- nor can I move the fields.

Not all business is created equal. My fault for generalising. But in the shutting down the factory, it is just a question of money. Moving to another country, and finding a place to live and work there, costs a bit too, for the individual, too, last I heard. And unlike the hypotehtical factory owner, I still have to do a lot more then just wave my wallet (And possibly empty some of it), to bring my supply of labour across the border. I'll either need to be married to someone down there, be already hired, be in great demand, or... be planning to start a company ;), in order to get my immigration request approved.

[kandrathe]

The evidence appears to indicate that they are pulling their own weight. By and large, they work long hours at crappy jobs producing things for American businesses. They do this because wages in Mexico at the bottom are terrible.

What does it matter, from a libertarian perspective, that they will be poor for generations? They are not 'languishing.' They are becoming the working poor. But if they choose that, that's their choice. They make it based on their perspective, not yours.

If the argument is simply legalistic, that 'these are the rules, and they should be followed because they are the rules', then fine. But that argument is not the same as the ones you're making.

-Jester

How about we just reciprocate Mexico's immigration laws for US citizens?

Mexico's Immigration Law

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
* A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

* "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
* Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

[Pantalaimon]

How about we just reciprocate Mexico's immigration laws for US citizens?

Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here in the USA

To clarify for those of us kibitzing the discussion, is there a part of that document you wish to draw our attention to in particular? It seems like pretty standard immigration policy, no?