You know I've been thinking. If the problem is illegal immigration...

[originalpckelly]

then why not remove the immigration caps on legal immigration? I'm pretty sure that will solve the problem of illegal immigration right then and there, aside from some really bad people who we need to catch anyway.

[bryant69]

1. Because the real problem is Brown people and cheap labor

You see we as a nation don't want to admit that we are just not that keen on brown people. We like vanilla people. And of course legal immigration would force employers to pay these immigrants a decent salary, and God knows we don't want that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. That's pretty much it in a nutshell

You don't here the complainers talking about non-Hispanic people very much. When they throw out the Xmillion illegal immigrants, the picture they paint usually doesn't include Chinese or Irish.

Patrick Fitzgerald was getting huge public outcry a few days ago here in Chicago. The Feds raided a shop that was giving out forged documents and the community was upset. Some said it was wrong for them to go in showing such force with machine guns and all...that it wasn't necessary to do that. And I have to say that for the first time I was shocked and appalled when the TV camera ran a clip of a woman saying, 'We just want papers so we can work. What's so wrong with that?' (Ummm...there's a legal way to do that, lady.)

It's a very complicated, highly emotional mess indeed.

[bryant69]

10. Made more emotional by the fact that we have to cover up

the real reasons behind our conflicting opinions on Race and Immigration.

Bryant

[TahitiNut]

21. Funny ... it seems to me that the "pro-amnesty" demonstrators and advocates ....

... are eager to paint it as a "Mexican" issue even more than those who want to design and enforce reasonable laws on immigration and visas. I've NEVER seen a Chinese flag in the demonstrations. I've never seen an Irish flag, either. By far, it's people advocating amnesty who are Hispanic or make reference to Mexico more than most who advocate enforcable and just laws.

At the same time, when one-sixth of all the citizens of Mexico reside in the US and, by most estimates, 80% or more of illegal aliens are from Mexico, it seems reasonable to mention Mexico (with which we share a border) when discussing illegal aliens in the U.S. But who ignores the shipping containers loaded with Chinese aliens? I don't. You don't. Do you? Who ignores the eastern Europeans? I don't. I alos don't believe someone who has broken tha law is sub-human ... as some would wish to imply. Good people break laws. It doesn NOT mean the laws shouldn't be enforced and it doesn't mean the laws can't be better-designed. That's best done, we claim to believe, by a democratic process. But that's difficult. Grenade-throwing is easier.

Funny about that. But let's just drag out the broad brushes and smear anyone who'd disagree. It's easier than democracy, isn't it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. A finite labor pool is what "forces" employers to pay a decent salary.

All you can force an employer to do is pay minimum wage.

[TahitiNut]

44. Since the entire social rationale for enterprise is a "common wealth" of the community

... and NOT the enrichment of a narrow few, it's entirely reasonable and rational for an enterprise to be limited to the population of citizens surrounding it in attracting and compensating HUMAN BEINGS for their labors ... serving the economic interests of the community.

I get tired of the 0.1% hair on the tail of the dog wagging the entire dog to serve the appetites of profiteers! The community does NOT exist solely for the convenience of the owners of capital (means of production) ... something of no value without labor. It's the very existence of people willing to work that affords capital assets their value. It is NOT the job of a member of the public to cheapen the cost of their labor in order to increase the value of a capital asset and allowing the value of the labor of others to become profits in the pockets of owners!

When ANY enterprise has reached the limits of equitably including members of the community in the economic system, it has also reached the limits of its legitimacy!

[EFerrari]

47. Close. The real problem is the US going into brown countries

and manipulating them and their elections.

Trust me. Those brown people would much rather stay home. But the US has this nasty habit of derailing their free elections and getting the corporate kiss asses seated. Make life unlivable at home, get a slave work force with no rights here.

Oh and sure, we have a huge problem with racism here. As any of the citizens' whose vote didn't count in 2000 or 2004 can attest.

[Greyhound]

57. We don't have an illegal immigration problem, we have an illegal employment problem.

Until we face this, nothing will change except the surnames of the scapegoats.

[question everything]

58. That's becaue "brown" people are the majority of illegal immigrants

seeing that they do not need to cross an ocean to enter this country.

And Canadians appear to be pretty happy where they are.

[conspirator]

61. rec

[Cerridwen]

2. But, but, then who would we scapegoat so businesses and the media

can tell us the "real" reason why wages are down and jobs are few and far between?

We have to have someone "else" to blame and hate or we might start noticing what businesses are up to.

[treestar]

3. I think everyone who comes should be "legal" in some way

And if they can get a job offer, they should get a work permit of some kind. This way they are not under threat of deportation or the accusation of illegality and other handicaps following from that - leads them to demand as high wages as the locals.

That's the only practical way to deal with it. The immigrants' standard of living goes up, and as a bonus due to modern travel/technology, so does the standard of living of their relatives remaining in the prior country. That country's workers' wage demands get higher.

Migration seems to be a natural thing - a force too big to control. All of the attempts we make to control it turn out to be useless and it goes on and gets even worse.

The Immigration Reform Act of 1986 was supposed to put a halt to it - and the numbers of illegal immigrants got larger and larger in the years after it. The idea of walls around a country the size of the U.S. is just a joke.

[Double T]

4. What? Illegal immigrants belong in their own country fighting to improve........

their own lives and change the ways of their own governments. The USA is already in serious financial trouble and the 'removal of immigration caps' would drive 'US' into bankruptcy sooner than later.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Immigration is not "the" problem

It's just one aspect of globalizing the economy. There's a ton of other problems.

Letting the manufacturing infrastructure go. Our remaining steel mills could never support another "WW2-style" effort of supplying shipyards and armament plants.

Outsourcing. Sending "middle-class" work off to be done on the cheap, without taxing the value-add on the returned results.

Educating non-americans. Some, ok, but it's out of control. We give away athletic scholarships to foreigners just to beef up the wins, with no regard to giving those scholarships to our kids. I don't care for my tax money being spent this way.

Outsourcing and educating foreigners is going a long way toward busting the unions. And when unions are strong, even the non-union white-collar workers benefit. That indeed is a tide that lifts all ships.

</rant>

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Don't mention it to Lou Dobbs..he'll soil his sheets.

[Cobalt Violet]

8. Then who will occupy all the new 2000 bed detention centers being built?

Immigration detention is big business.

[TahitiNut]

9. Sometimes I wish I could see everything as simple and clear-cut as some.

It'd be easy to simply regard every person entering the U.S. as an "immigrant" - seeking to live in the U.S., become citizens, and participate in our democracy. Sadly, that's not the case. Millions don't seem to have those intentions and seek only to participate in our capitalism, selling their labor at (almost) U.S. rates while their families remain elsewhere with costs of living at lower rates. Color me strange but I'm not interested in a labor force that's both unable to vote and unwilling to be a witness to illegal labor practices, pollution violations, and workplace safety violations merely because they apply a "standard" that's immeasurably lower somewhere else in their nation of origin.

It'd be easy to think that most illegal aliens were loving, law-abiding, hard-working economic refugees from some hell-hole of another nation. After all, implicit in the heartfelt sympathies that go out to such people is the notion that they're fleeing from a Hell On Earth that's so bad that they'd suffer from working (and living) conditions that no person already a citizen would tolerate. Where is that Hell-on-Earth and why does it exist? Do all these people REALLY meet the standards in our laws to become citizens? Or are many of them already-convicted felons? Seems to me that's not quite so simple.

I, like anyone, have great empathy for human shields ... particularly human shields who have almost no choice in the matter. Isn't that what the children of illegal aliens have become? Why do we regard their legal option (since they're dual citizens) to stay with their parents in their parents' country such a huge penalty? Again, are the conditions in that country so bad that it's cruel? If so, why?

Most of all, I'd be happy to regard anyone who opposed our failure to adequately compose and enforce equitable immigration laws as racists and xenophobes. It'd sure make it easier to ignore WHAT they said when I knew that WHO they were was 'bad' and 'evil.' After all, thinking is an effort.


As I think about it, I suppose it'd be easiest to think that a country exists in order to serve capitalism. After all, that's our American Heritage. We're a nation largely founded on the 'principles' of colonialism: in service to ownership. It's not a matter of people working together in whatever enterprise suits their skills and interests for the sake of a community; it's a matter of servitude to the owners of the plantation and devaluing labor so they can collect higher profits and their customers can pay less - until they can't afford to pay at all. I guess that's my biggest difficulty - I just can't regard a nation as a mere convenience or impediment to the Higher Will of global capitalism, to be exploited or overruled as convenient to the owners. It seems to me that the whole idea is to work together to build a stronger and better nation, valuing the labors of one another as participation in our common wealth. Funny. I guess I'm old-fashioned.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. The vast majority of previous immigrants didn't come here for "freedom".

They came here to "participate in our capitalism" by "stealing" the jobs that Americans wouldn't do. And, they faced the same hostility, bigotry, and denunciation that the current wave of immigrants face. They certainly weren't equipped to become good, upright, well-informed, citizens on arrival. Many were, or became, felons and "trouble makers".

My grandmother fled the poverty of Ireland and the dominance of the Church and the landlords. Was it "hell on earth"? Probably not, and many of the stories she told me about Ireland were probably exaggerated. She fled to England, then with her Brit husband and 6 kids, to Canada. Not for the nebulous ideal of "freedom" but to make a better living. When her husband was killed doing a job the native Canadians wouldn't do (he broke horses for the Canadian Army) with no compensation, she left two of her kids behind in Canada and moved to California (it was legal then), and "stole" floor scrubbing jobs from good Americans. Her 4 daughters, including my mother, were put out as soon as they were able in similar "stolen" jobs.

Which is probably a similar story to most immigrants of every generation who came here - "legally" or "illegally".

[TahitiNut]

15. Strawman. I never said they did.

As a grandchild of Norwegian immigrants, I need no condescending tutoring in this. I said exactly what I meant. It's easy to compose anecdotes and throw them around in a kind of political, broad-brush food-fight. It's easy to conscript an Army of visceral terms like "freedom" and "poverty" to demonize an opposing view. It's easy to eradicate any distinction between 'alien' and 'immigrant.' I wish I could find that easy way and not pay the toll of a surrender of some of my values.

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. I just reread your original post and will stick to my reply.

I'm not attempting to get into a food fight of any kind with you, TN. You and I, seemingly, agree on most issues and I value your posts.

I inferred from your post, that you saw today's "illegal" immigrants as special, unusual, and a threat to what the previous "legal" immigrants built.

While I agree that there is no simple solution to the "immigrant problem" and that the influx of new immigrants does, and will, cause problems due to their non-citizen status, I firmly believe that the sooner they are made citizens, the sooner they will act like citizens and demand a measure of equality with their fellow citizens. As is being demonstrated today in the demonstrations. Much in the same way that their predecessors did.

[TahitiNut]

27. Even though I pointed out the invalidity of calling them "immigrants" ...

... you (along with the CORPORATE media) keep using that word to apply to people who have no intention to "immigrate" (live here, work here, become citizens, and participate lawfully in our democracy).

The U.S., among all the nations of the world, has the most flexible and permissive policies on immigration. That sure doesn't mean it's the best it can be. I am, however, wholly opposed to importing labor under the guise of "immigration" or "guest worker" programs. I am also opposed to taking the vote away from ex-felons. Why? I'm absolutely opposed to a non-voting working class of any kind. That's because I'm a "democrat" and not a "Democrat."

The legal term is "illegal alien" and that's what I'll use. It has nothing to do with propaganda or racism. It has to do with living under the rule of law and using the democratic process to design those laws.

Yes, we do agree on most issues ... and I respect your perspectives even when I might disagree. At the same time, this particualr issue is loaded with unstated-but-implied smears and propaganda. It's visceral for many - on BOTH (actually 'all') 'sides'.


Speaking of Mexco, though ...

I have some puzzling (for me) thoughts, however. For example, if one-sixth of the citizens of Mexico live and work in the U.S., then why would it be invalid for the U.S. to impose massive political leverage on the government of Mexico to adopt more equitable and democratic programs to address the twin issues of poverty and education? Mexico is actually a WEALTHY nation and OIL EXPORTER. (Could there be a hint in that?) Mexico is still a plantation economy and racist to boot. Why do we support the continuation of those conditions?

Has anyone noticed the FACT that the economy of the U.S. is becoming more like Mexico's instead of Mexico becoming more like the U.S.'s?? Can there be any doubt about who benefits from that?

[Selatius]

39. A bit simplistic, but Mexico is made poor precisely to benefit American business interests.

The law of supply and demand also applies to the labor market as well, unfortunately. If you flood a labor market with enough people, wages go down, as employers don't have to compete against each other to attract scarce workers. As a result, non-manufacturing jobs are seeing stagnation or a decline in real wages, and manufacturing in America is all but gone.

[TahitiNut]

40. Yep. It's the moral bankruptcy of treating human beings as commodities.

The greatest EVILS in our society have to do with the objectification of human beings... whether we're talking about labor, sexual predation, or racism.

Declaring "open borders" on both the import of labor and the export of jobs is an appalling surrender to such corruption, imho.

[Marie26]

49. Immigrants

"people who have no intention to "immigrate" (live here, work here, become citizens, and participate lawfully in our democracy)."

If this is true, then why are millions of them demonstrating for the right to become US citizens?

[TahitiNut]

50. Read the original reply (#9).

:shrug: Live in the question.

[Marie26]

51. Huh?

That doesn't answer my question in any way. You're contending that these immigrants do not want to become permanent residents or US citizens. I asked, if that is true, why are millions demonstrating for just that right?

"Color me strange but I'm not interested in a labor force that's both unable to vote and unwilling to be a witness to illegal labor practices, pollution violations, and workplace safety violations."

Hey, then you should be in favor of allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens so that they can vote, can be a witness to illegal labor & pollution practices w/o fear of deportation, and can participate in the democratic process. No?

[TahitiNut]

52. You apparently didn't or can't read. You're misrepresenting my posts.

You claim the I'm "contending that these immigrants do not want to become permanent residents or US citizens" and that's a bald falsehood, contradicted by the post to which I clearly refer.

It's impossible to have an intellectually honest and civil discussion when folks persistently misrepresent perspectives that diverge from some simplistic and superficially visceral 'cause' - one that paints with a broad brush in some non-Euclidean universe. If you'll attempt to read the comment from "The Nation" from which I've posted an extract below, it might better inform such a discussion. I'm just not interested in playing strawman games.

On edit ...
Look, as I've indicated I have little patience with loaded language - language which is chosen to misrepresent the complex issues under discussion. The most common instance of loaded language is use of the term "immigrant" as a catch-all for all persons present in this country without benefit of legal processes under our laws. Just as there are both "immigrants" and "non-immigrants" among those aliens present legally - having met the requirements of our laws - there are also both "immigrants" and "non-immigrants" among the illegal aliens (the legal and neutral term most properly used) being discussed. There's a great hue and cry when the terminolgy is challenged ... which is a clear indication of reliance on loaded language, imho.

[Marie26]

54. Still not answering my question

But that's fine. I believe it is a strawman to contend, as you have in this thread, that illegal immigrants have no interest in becoming US citizens or participating in our democracy. Especially when thousands upon thousands are demonstrating & protesting for the right to become citizens, to form unions, and to work for a fair wage. Instead, you've just attempted to deflect, and go off on a tangents about "loaded language" (how is the word "immigrant" loaded?) & about how it's impossible to have a discussion (why?). What I'm getting is that you don't really wish to have a discussion w/me about the issue of immigration. And that's fine, too. Adios!

[Breeze54]

26. You've reduced the Irish Famine to a mere 'inconvenience'.

"My grandmother fled the poverty of Ireland and the dominance of the Church and the landlords.
Was it "hell on earth"? Probably not, and many of the stories she told me about Ireland were probably exaggerated."

The Irish famine was the most tragic and significant event in Irish history
and one of the worst human disasters of the nineteenth century.

"They came here to "participate in our capitalism" by "stealing" the jobs that Americans wouldn't do."
No, the industrial revolution and factories needed workers.



People died of starvation in their houses, in the fields, and on the roads. Disease became epidemic. More died of disease than of starvation. About one million perished. Most were deliberated from long starvation when they finally succumbed to typhus, cholera, dysentery, and scurvy. There was even an increase in the number of certified lunatics in Ireland (Costigan, 1969). During the worst of the famine, peasants were perishing in the night and their bodies would be found in the morning partially devoured by rats. At the worst in 1847 the uncoffined dead were being buried in trenches. Starving dogs waited for the moment when the graves were unguarded. One million emigrated and many were dying from fever along the journey.
The population had fallen by one-fifth to 6.5 million by the end of the famine. The hardest hit regions were the south and the west (Gibbon, 1975). Cholera hit in 1849 and killed many of the famine survivors.

-------------------------------------

Coffin Ships

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/

On board a "Coffin Ship" to America ...


They were termed ‘coffin ships’


The first coffin ships headed for Quebec, Canada. The three thousand mile journey, depending on winds and the captain's skill, could take from 40 days to three months. Upon arrival in the Saint Lawrence River, the ships were supposed to be inspected for disease and any sick passengers removed to quarantine facilities on Grosse Isle, a small island thirty miles downstream from Quebec City.

But in the spring of 1847, shipload after shipload of fevered Irish arrived, quickly overwhelming the small medical inspection facility, which only had 150 beds. By June, 40 vessels containing 14,000 Irish immigrants waited in a line extending two miles down the St. Lawrence. It took up to five days to see a doctor, many of whom were becoming ill from contact with the typhus-infected passengers. By the summer, the line of ships had grown several miles long. A fifteen-day general quarantine was then imposed for all of the waiting ships. Many healthy Irish thus succumbed to typhus as they were forced to remain in their lice-infested holds. With so many dead on board the waiting ships, hundreds of bodies were simply dumped overboard into the St. Lawrence.

Others, half-alive, were placed in small boats and then deposited on the beach at Grosse Isle, left to crawl to the hospital on their hands and knees if they could manage. Thousands of Irish, ill with typhus and dysentery, eventually wound up in hastily constructed wooden fever sheds. These makeshift hospitals, badly understaffed and unsanitary, simply became places to die, with corpses piled "like cordwood" in nearby mass graves. Those who couldn't get into the hospital died along the roadsides. In one case, an orphaned Irish boy walking along the road with other boys sat down for a moment under a tree to rest and promptly died on the spot.

The quarantine efforts were soon abandoned and the Irish were sent on to their next destination without any medical inspection or treatment. From Grosse Isle, the Irish were given free passage up the St. Lawrence to Montreal and cities such as Kingston and Toronto. The crowded open-aired river barges used to transport them exposed the fair-skinned Irish to all-day-long summer sun causing many bad sunburns. At night, they laid down close to each other to ward off the chilly air, spreading more lice and fever.

Many pauper families had been told by their landlords that once they arrived in Canada, an agent would meet them and pay out between two and five pounds depending on the size of the family. But no agents were ever found. Promises of money, food and clothing had been utterly false. Landlords knew that once the paupers arrived in Canada there was virtually no way for them to ever return to Ireland and make a claim. Thus they had promised them anything just to get them out of the country.

More......

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. My grandmother, and mother , arrived in America in 1919. Not during the famine.

And, she came here to make a better living than she could in Ireland, England, or Canada.

[Breeze54]

31. She came to avoid WAR!!!! -- 1919 -1921 The Irish Revolution & WWI

Irish Revolution, period of transfer of the government of much of Ireland from the United Kingdom
to the Irish Free State (later the Republic of Ireland) between 1912 and 1922, and specifically
the period of armed conflict in 1919-1921.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781531236/Irish_Revolution.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. She was in England and Canada during the "troubles".

But, she did have many unkind, and frequently obscene, things to say about the wealthy Brit (and, Irish) landlords. Well, she was pretty obscene about the wealthy in general. Not to mention her utter contempt for the Priests and the Church.

[Greyhound]

59. Once again, your ignorance is exceeded only by your bombast,

and righteous indignation. It has been the same story all along, over and over, and only the surnames change. The issue is the "owner class" pitting the domestic working class against the immigrant class.

[Marie26]

11. That would make too much sense.

And it would force many illegal immigration opponents to admit the real reason they're so upset - they don't want too many Hispanic people coming to America.

[originalpckelly]

14. "they don't want too many Hispanic people coming to America"

Yep. That's it.

[stillcool]

12. isn't it strange...

that with the vast intelligence apparatus at the fingertips of the U.S. Government, we have such porous borders? I personally believe that the U.S. government is a corporate entity that is global, predatory, and without conscience. Pitting that apparatus against individual human beings without a pot to piss in just doesn't jive. I must be missing something.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x762097

[Sapere aude]

16. Put in the immigrant's shoes, every one of us would do the same thing.

It is chance or happenstance that we were not born to poor parents in Mexico. If we were we would be crossing the border illegally to get jobs in the USA. Of course we were born here so we can hold the moral high ground. Send them all back to a life of poverty. They are here illegally!

[Zywiec]

17. If the problem is DUI, just remove the cap on Blood Alcohol Content

I guess you could remove almost any problem with that logic.

I'm less concerned about the illegal aliens as I am with securing our borders. It's like swiss cheese. There is nothing stopping any terrorist from crossing the border to cause havoc.

[Marie26]

18. But lifting caps would help secure the border.

With less illegal immigrants crossing to seek work, there would be far less traffic, and Border Patrol agents could concentrate on catching terrorists, drug smugglers, etc.

[Zywiec]

19. If you lifted caps, there would be no reason not to cross the border

Everyone would be coming across.

I think the first thing we should do is secure the border, then see who is here, then try to accomodate them the best we can.

[Marie26]

20. Not really addressing my point

If caps were lifted, people could cross legally, through normal customs - there would be no need to walk across a desert. Therefore, foot traffic across the border would fall dramatically. So, the people who would be trying to cross illegally would be more likely to actually be terrorists, drug smugglers, etc. The Border Patrol would then be free to actually concentrate on catching these criminals instead of being distracted trying to catch all these migrant workers. Seems like, if you truly want to secure the borders, you should be in favor of a measure that would reduce the flow of illegal border crossings, and relieve the burden on Border Patrol agents.

[Zywiec]

28. If everyone could simply cross legally into our country

what's the incentive to cross through the normal customs checkpoints? Why would I want to undergo the scrutiny of the Border Patrol when I can just as legally cross 100 yards down the road?

And you believe there would be an orderly flow across the border if all caps were lifted?

[originalpckelly]

41. I don't about you, but if I had a choice between the Sonoran Desert...

or a bus or other vehicle, I'd probably not choose the Sonoran Desert.

[Marie26]

48. OK

Let's see, what's the incentive to cross at normal checkpoints? Not dying? If you're seriously arguing that people are just as likely to try to cross the Arizona desert wilderness in 100-degree heat as take a drive on the highway, this discussion isn't fun anymore. We don't have many reports of Canadians trying to cross mountains & forest wilderness to get to the US - why? Cause they don't have to, because they can just cross the border normally. In the same way, if people could immigrate legally, they wouldn't need to take such drastic measures to enter the country illegally. You can argue that lifting caps would result in too many immigrants, etc., which I suspect is the real objection here. But there's really no arguing that lifting the immigration caps would result in less illegal immigration. Because there would be less undocumented immigrants flowing illegally across the border, Border Patrol agents could concentrate on catching the ones who remain in the desert - mostly the smugglers & criminals. Less illegal border crossings, less pressure on BP agents, more concentration on criminals/terrorists, less illegal immigrants in the US. Seems like this solution would answer all of the voiced objections against illegal immigration.

[Zywiec]

53. Not dying from crossing 100 yards from a checkpoint?

I guess you didn't understand my question, because you think someone only has two choices: cross in the middle of the desert or a normal checkpoint. I guess there's no in between? In the almost 2000 miles of border there will be plenty of crossings for all of the new immigrants. And since everyone is legal under your proposal, they will all be proper enough to hop in one of the ubiquitous cars or buses to cross at the normal checkpoint.

You said: "We don't have many reports of Canadians trying to cross mountains & forest wilderness to get to the US - why? Cause they don't have to, because they can just cross the border normally."

Of course they can cross normally, we have a pretty good idea that they will all be going home after their stay in the US. Can you say the same thing about all the people crossing the southern border? Are you trying to equate Canadians with Mexicans? I have a pretty good idea that the 12 million Mexicans do not plan on leaving anytime soon.

Also, what other problems do you think we can solve by simply removing the illegality. If we make burglary no longer illegal, the illegal burglary problem is solved overnight with your logic. Maybe you should become the new FBI director. You could really make the crime stats look great in no time.

[Marie26]

55. The point is

why would you cross illegally if you could cross legally? Coming legally would make it easier to get a job, etc.; not to mention avoiding the risk of arrest &/or deportation. Most people would not - unless they had to because of a criminal record, drug smuggling, etc. It's obvious that more legal immigrant crossings would lead to less illegal crossings, which would lead to less pressure on BP agents guarding the border areas. If people have a problem w/an overwhelming influx of new legal immigrants, or think immigration hurts jobs or whatever, then that's a real point to make. But it's just a dodge to pretend that the real objection here is just about illegal crossings - because lifting caps would reduce the level of illegal crossings across the border.

[Greyhound]

60. You really should think this through, what you've said makes no sense at all.

First the sheer amount of traffic would at least double, possibly triple, making it even easier for those terrorists (who are already here, and if not, get through with legal papers anyway, and the drug smugglers already have their means well established)

The resulting economic chaos would collapse the dollar completely, and I think we are doing well enough at that already, and the collapse of our economy would destroy Mexico and Canada and spread panic throughout the world.

All this so that you can hire a nanny cheap?
:think:

[zbdent]

22. the real problem is that Republican donors

hire thousands of illegal aliens as cheap labor to avoid paying American citizens living wages ...

[PsN2Wind]

24. Importing labor has much the same effect as exporting jobs

only with greater costs to this countrys citizens.

[TahitiNut]

29. It's treating human beings as mere objects ... commodities.

When we reduce human beings as mere 'labor' instead of valuing members of our community (family, neighbors, equal citizens) in all the aspects of a "common wealth" then we dehumanize EVERYONE. (Especially ourselves.)

[originalpckelly]

42. Or maybe the problem is that the assholes who run this country just don't want to pay people...

a decent wage. There's nothing wrong with coming to America, and I can guarantee you, that if these illegal employers paid these illegals a good wage, the illegals wouldn't turn it down. The problem is the company. Illegals have no reason to turn down a good paying job if it is offered.

[TahitiNut]

45. We The People are "the assholes who run this country."

When we don't do our job we don't deserve to be a democracy.

[TahitiNut]

32. IMHO, the poppy growers in Afghanistan are behaving more ethically than importers of field labor

... in the U.S.

Both are (technically?) breaking the law. The Afghanistan poppy grower supplying the world opium market is, at least, supporting his regional "common weal" by working the fields with others in his community, bringing money into his local economy and sharing that money with laborers probably more generously than a lettuce grower who's using illegal alien workers and not even putting latrines in the fields for their use.

Just sayin'. :shrug:

[Deja Q]

33. Immigration isn't a problem. Exploiting people is.

If there was a stated plan behind offshoring, immigration, and other issues, I'd be far more likely to agree. As it stands, what's going on is a cornucopia of non-sequiturs; leaving gaps for one's imagination to conjure up anything that's either remotely accurate or wildly outlandish.

[underpants]

35. The problem is right there in the name-Illegal immigration

Make them legal and you have no illegal immigration problem.

[iamthebandfanman]

36. how does canada handle it ?

you know canada number one import is people. so what are their immigration policies?
im pretty sure they have just as long of a wait time as the United States but im not sure. anyone know ?

[TahitiNut]

38. Proof of legal residency, afaik

All the nations on the planet use one of three methods for controlling immigration (1) unattractive living condtions, (2) guarded borders, (3) national identity cards or their equivalent.

Essentially, nations either make their country so unattractive that they don't have an alien migration issue or they 'guard' either the perimeter or the ability to live and work and engage in regulated commerce (like bank accounts, etc.). For some nations with a very ethnically homogenous population, 'ethnic profiling' supplements the 'proof of legal residency.'

The philosophical conflict in the U.S. is between choosing to guard the borders or increase the 'documentation' required to rent a place to live, open a bank account, get a job, and engage in other activities. Historically, we've relied most on guarded border crossings and physical impediments (deserts, rivers, oceans, etc.) to crossing. We have a national aversion to "identity cards" - which is 'convenient' for cheap-labor employers.

[iamthebandfanman]

37. Want to know what would really solve it?

If people from other countries would grow some gonads and stand up for their rights in their respective countries.
i know people on DU hate when people mention they dont like seeing other countries flags at immigration rallys... BUT...
if you love your country so much to wave it here when wanting to live here... then why didnt you stay to make your country better?
why wont people take their governments back like we are trying to do?

hell , i dont like living in the united states very much any more but i'm not running away to canada(although i love canada and its people ALOT). why you might ask ? cause i want to stay here and be part of the solution!
they should want to do the same in their own countries.
i understand this isnt possible in some third world countries for whatever reason but in places like mexico the people should just rise up and take it back for the people and get what they want and deserve instead of letting these crooked corrupted people become president and swindle the country's money away on personal benefits!
nobody said it was easy to do, but why run away from something you love so much ?

[TahitiNut]

43. Subscribers to "The Nation" can read a commentary called "The Fight of Our Lives" ...

... by Deepak Bhargava & Angelica Salas. While not a Holy Grail, it advances the discussion by not pandering to the simplistic and superficial that dominates DU these days.

<snip>

In order to realize the potential for the kind of alliance that could produce legislation in 2007, we need a clear moral framework and a policy architecture that embodies it. There is unity within the immigrants' rights movement on some core principles: a path to citizenship for all the undocumented workers currently in the United States, which would benefit US workers by eliminating competition with workers who are especially vulnerable to exploitation and abuse; elimination of backlogs in the family visa system to reunite families; and a restoration of due process and civil liberties lost in the wake of 9/11. But disagreement on the left about other key issues has the potential to undermine the prospects for legislation and fracture the coalition we need to build.

First and foremost, the debate about guest-worker programs has generated much controversy and confusion. Any immigration solution has to deal not just with the immigrants who are here but with those who will come in the future. Neither an open-borders nor closed-borders policy is workable or achievable. The status quo is a recipe for more border deaths and a growing undocumented population. Nor can progressives embrace a new guest-worker program that would install a permanent second-tier labor force without economic or political standing.

What's the way out of this bind? Progressives should support expansion of visas for immigrant workers at levels high enough to offset the number of undocumented workers who currently come to the country. These visas should be nothing like our current guest-worker program but instead must meet conditions to prevent abuse and exploitation. Any visa must provide a path to citizenship and insure that workers aren't tied to employers and can move freely in the US labor market. It must give immigrant workers full labor rights and the right to organize. A citizen-worker program--distinct from abusive temporary guest-worker programs--could give workers control of their work visas and their future in the United States.

The second contentious issue is how we deal with the impact of immigration on native-born workers. It's misleading to claim that "immigrants take jobs that US workers won't." The displacement effect has been real, especially at the low end of the labor market. Many native-born workers, especially African-American workers, have been shut out of jobs as employers have sought to hire undocumented immigrants at lower wages. Progressives need to acknowledge this and push for policies that would address the problem by strengthening civil rights and labor-law enforcement, requiring employers to post available jobs centrally so that they can't rely solely on social networks for hiring, and funding job programs for the long-term unemployed. Not all of what needs to be done to address the broken and chaotic low-wage labor market can be accomplished in the context of immigration reform, but we should use the debate to advance some concrete proposals to benefit all workers. At the same time, it's important to emphasize that US-born workers and immigrants are fundamentally in the same boat. Immigrants are coming here largely in response to economic dislocation in their home countries, propelled in part by US economic policies. The same forces driving migration are driving the erosion of living standards for all US workers.

<snip>

Deepak Bhargava is executive director of the Center for Community Change.
Angelica Salas is executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/bhargava_salas

[TahitiNut]

46. {crickets}

(sigh) :shrug:

[Greyhound]

62. There's too many words, makes head feel funny.

Me no like...

What's on?

[Greyhound]

56. Because we can't fit a billion people here. n/t