We need to deal with this

[bonito]

It's a touchy subject, but a big one that wont go away overnight without thoughtful discussion. I think du can come away with a concession or even a solution, we can't shrug it off any longer. Who knows maybe washington will take notice. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2165771&mesg_id=2165771

[rucky]

1. Go after the employers of illegals. n/'t

[acmejack]

2. Exactly correct.

They hire illegals with impunity here. Everyone knows it, but nothing is ever done. It is not unusual to meet work crews where no one speaks english.

[Kenroy]

3. Do you interact with them?

Why does it matter what language they speak?

[bonito]

4. I do

I don't speak spanish, but believe me its so easy to befriend them, after all, there just like me, no different. Peace

[stillcool]

5. i have interacted with many...

illegals in my life. I worked in the hotel/restaurant business for years. Most were from Spanish-speaking countries, but I also worked for quite a while with Chinese. Then there was way back in the 70's that there was an influx of Middle-easterners. Iran, Lebanon. Many, many people are only here for a short time to make some money and go home. They live very frugally and work very hard. Conversing with non-english speaking people is quite fun to me, i have some very fond memories.

[acmejack]

6. Yes I do.

It matters in situations like I recently experienced. There was a crew working here and there was an accident. The emergency responders arrived and they were unable to communicate with the victim.

I could care less what language they speak, I have many many latino friends. So, I wasn't making a racist comment. I do believe it is appropriate to have work crews where one individual speaks the language of the land. Otherwise how do inspectors, safety and rescue personnel and other authorities communicate?

[unlawflcombatnt]

8. Prosecute Employers Aggressively

Language only matters in this case because it provides additional evidence that the workers are not here legally. An employer can't claim that he never suspected such workers were illegal if they don't even speak English. That should at least raise questions about their immigration status. At minimum it should make employers question whether they are here legally or not. And it should discredit an employer's usual excuse of "I didn't know they were illegal."

Most employers know full well when they're hiring illegal aliens. They just claim otherwise. Let's put the burden of proof on employers to prove they are legal, instead of allowing them to falsely claim ignorance because their "documents were in order." Documents should only be "in order" when they've been verified with either Social Security or the IRS. Falsification of documents can easily be uncovered if there is a will to do so. The threat of a fine or imprisonment might increase the "will" of employers to do some verifying. Forcing employers to verify status, as well as prosecuting them for not doing so, would greatly reduce our immigration problems.

Controlling the borders is not the problem. Controlling illegal hiring by employers is the problem. Illegal immigrants don't just wander across the border for no reason. Nor do they come here to use American social services. They come here because there is a demand for their cheap labor. We need to eliminate that demand. Prosecuting employers is the only solution to the problem because it is the only way to eliminate that demand.

There are no "jobs Americans won't do." There are only employers who won't pay enough to hire Americans.

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[txaslftist]

7. We Do need to deal with this.

The Pukes are playing up "immigration is the greatest threat to our kuntry ever ever ever waaaaah" crap. I don't recall when it was, but I know that a fax from KKKarl got intercepted and posted here a while back along the lines that immigration needs to be a Puke talking point.

The fact of the matter is that Bush has been deliberately WEAK on illegal immigration, because he thinks the borders should be open. This provides black market labor that can be paid less than minimum wage, to enrich his corporate pals. Illegal immigration has increased drastically under GWB.

Rove correctly identified this as a weakness in the GOP's political position, and correctly identified it as a meme they needed to jump on early and often, in order to 1) distort the actual fact of their failures in this area, and 2) to create an impression that the Republicans will be stronger on anti-immigration measures than the Democrats.

In other words, in perfect Rovean strategory, they are taking a Republican failure, and attempting to make it a Republican campaign asset.

While I generally don't believe that Democrats should take Republican oratorical positions and simply 'out-Republican' them, this is one area where we need to be clear, and our electoral '06 message needs to be loud and clear: "The Republicans have failed to police the border for five years. They have diverted assets from border protection to the war in Iraq and to finance tax cuts for the rich. As a result illegal immigration has increased to the greatest level in US history. Our border is porous and insecure. The Democrats will enforce our border by moving more assets (including national security assets) there to apprehend illegals. We will reduce illegal immigration, and ensure that Mexican nationals here to work are here legally. We will streamline the guest worker program so that Mexican Nationals can get here to legally work earlier, with less hassle and less expense."

This message will assuage California produce farmers (and many others), who must rely on illegals to pick crops, because they will still have guest workers to do the work. The guest workers will pay payroll taxes, more than making up for the expense of policing the border. It will reduce the dangerous traffic in illegals involving cramped trucks and the like. It will reduce the number of deaths in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. It will reduce drug smuggling and it will reduce the threat of terrorists infiltrating from Mexico.

The fundamental position must remain that the Republicans have had five years of one-party rule to address this issue, and are only now taking mere cosmetic steps to fix a problem they have made worse.

I'm going to have to make this its own thread due to its length. Thanks, Bonito, for raising this topic.