Should the American people decide the immigration issue instead of elected officials?

[Robson]

I just listened to CSPAN's Washington Journal and the calls ran 99% against Congress enacting a law that gives legal status to illegal immigrants and expands a guestworker program to 400K a year. It is apparent that many in Congress and the President is 100% out of kilter on what the people of this democratic republic want.

I suggest that the basic concepts of immigration policy be voted upon in a binding referendum by the American people.

Our rich elitists, big business, pandering elected officials, and religious institutions are the only ones that see a benefit to this. Most of us regular workers fully understand that we citizens are getting screwed now and will get screwed even more because of over supply of unskilled labor that creates wage pressure, and requires social services because they themselves are poor. Not only that but it also makes many more of us poorer because our wages and taxes are impacted and less able to send our children to college and pay for health care. It's a vicious downward spiral for most legal US citizens.

In all honesty I'm outraged that the Democratic Party is on the wrong side of this and thus the wrong side of its constituency. Every call that I heard from Democrats and African Americans opposed Congress on this.

This is the single most important domestic issue that will impact this country in the long term.

[mmonk]

1. No. Right now, nativism has returned through concentrated

propaganda efforts. The government needs enemies to hide their misdeeds behind and immigration has been one part of that effort (the others, gays and Muslims). If this ever is over, then a sober conversation can exist.

[Saturday]

2. I totally agree Robson,

I have taken this issue up with my Democratic Senators. I got the usual canned response. It is the issue right behind Iraq that can make or break the Democratic hold on Congress IMO.

[Robson]

40. But they don't get it

American workers (i.e. 75% of America) want a party that will consistently support them, not a party that will turn against them based upon some absurd ideology that our borders should be open to the benefit of everyone but American workers.

In case anyone on DU ever wonders why many low income low skilled Americans left the Democratic Party as its historic constituency, and then as the height of ignorance put pro GOP signs in their front yard.....that is the reason.

The Party needs to be consistent and absolute in its support of American workers. That was its long term base and the failure to support that base was the reason for the dry spell after Clinton signed NAFTA.

[Skidmore]

3. I agree, Robson. I quit posting on this subject for a while

because of the catcalls and castigations. There are many sides to this argument, and most of them have to do with race or border issues. Many of them have to do with economic issues, trade, sovereignty, and, yes, rule of law. Fancy that, rule of law.

[pampango]

4. My rule with regard to politicians responding to "popular will":

When I agree with the current "popular will" on a topic, e.g. the desire of the public to get out of Iraq, then I urge the politicians to act in accordance with the wishes of the people who elected them. When I disagree with the "popular will", e.g. on immigration, then I urge the politicians to show "leadership" and do what is right, not to cave in to hysteria and scapegoating.

I would bet that most of us have alternately urged politicians to follow the popular will and then to resist the polls and show some leadership depending on the issue.

My take would be the same with regards to letting the American people decide the immigration issue. Those who agree with your position would probably also agree with letting the people vote on it directly, since the polls indicate you would probably win. Those who disagree would probably like to see the decision remain in Congress, so that politicians can show "leadership" and resist popular "hysteria" and "scapegoating."

[Robson]

5. LOL

That is so true but in the end it should always be the people.

Not to hijack my own thread there are times when I believe that in the not too distant future we could go to a direct democracy where the people vote on every bill by secured internet voting accounts, much like corporate proxies. The only purpose that Congress would serve would be to lobby us citizens to vote in the direction that they believed would be in our best interest, but the final vote would be by the people (not corporations or corporate lobbyists or political hacks)

[sinkingfeeling]

6. No, this is a Republic. That means that we have protections against a straight

majority rule. I find that most 'regular workers' are totally misinformed about the immigration issue, including yourself. See this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2849086

[pampango]

7. That is consistent with what I was telling Robson.

When I agree with most "regular workers", I urge the politicians to stop stalling and do the "will of the people."

When I do not agree with most "regular workers" (I agree with you on the overall economic value of immigrants, though I realize that most of the downward wage pressure they cause affects the unskilled working class, not me), I urge the politicians to stand up to the misinformed public (as legislators under a Republic - I fear I sound like Rush now) and show some leadership.

[NorthernSpy]

9. your link is irrelevant bullshit

... and in that thread, I've explained why.

[sinkingfeeling]

12. And where is your proof of all the evils caused by people 'illegally' in the USA?

[NorthernSpy]

15. that discussion is happening back at the thread you linked to...

You might want to revisit it.

[NorthernSpy]

8. they should quit trying to shove amnesty down our throats...

:puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Most polls show that most Americans favor "a road to citizenship".

Most Americans don't agree with you.

Wouldn't you do better to welcome the immigrants as citizens and join with them against the bosses instead of railing against your fellow worker?

http://www.immigrationforum.org/documents/PressRoom/PublicOpinion/2007/PollingSummary0407.pdf

[Robson]

34. They are not immigrants,they are univited guests used by big business to improve profits on our $$$

Let's understand something. I have nothing personal against these "illegal" immigrants (and not ever to be confused with legal immigrants) per se.

But make no mistake they are here illegally while at the same time lowering the standard of living of most Americans while elevating the profits of big business. That is the bottom line and why I oppose it.

I might be old fashioned but I resent uninvited guests in my home (invited by big business interests, political parties, churches, etc so they have improved profits or more members) why we the hosts must cover their unintended costs of education, healthcare, poverty while they cost us in lowered wages, higher taxes and environmental impact of over population.

In honesty I'm going to have a real difficult time supporting any politician that favors amnesty by any name and bringing in guest workers for the Chamber of Commerce, when we have US citizens unemployed.

This does not compute in my mind by any measure, or because some politician says it is the thing to do. .

[Rage for Order]

53. There is already a road to citizenship

It's called the immigration process.

[UTUSN]

11. The Minutemen would find absolutely nothing to disagree with you about

Dedication: To TANCREDO, "TEX" SENSENBRENNER, O'LOOFAH, MALKIN, the Minutemen, et al. (Note: SENSENBRENNER hates being called "TEX". Don't have nuthin' to do with "Texas." He's the heir to KOTEX.)



A stack of U.S. visas, above, is sorted recently at the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana, Mexico.
Denis Poroy/The Associated Press

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.themonitor.com/news/border_2405___article.html/cards_biometric.html

Bypassed at Border: Inspectors aren’t using technology, claiming laser visas cause backups at international crossings

By Elliot Spagat
The Associated Press/The Monitor
May 15, 2007 - 11:20PM
SAN DIEGO — The face- and fingerprint-matching technology that has been touted over the past decade as a sophisticated new way to stop terrorists and illegal immigrants from entering the country through Mexico has one major drawback: U.S. border inspectors almost never use it.

In fact, the necessary equipment is not even installed in vehicle lanes along the border. ....

Jeffrey Davidow, U.S. ambassador to Mexico from 1998 to 2001, recalls members of Congress visiting the border to see the machines, which were never used when the lawmakers were gone.

“I’d tell them that it was all show, that it doesn’t work, that the card is not doing what it’s supposed to do,” Davidow said. He said his warnings elicited shrugs.

There were also technological setbacks. Equipment to verify photos and fingerprints often failed to read through sweat, scratches and other wallet “crud,” according to an internal Homeland Security report.

A test at five Texas crossings in the spring of 2004 showed that 731 out of 1,740 cards, or 42 percent, were unreadable, according to the report, which was provided to The Associated Press by someone who insisted on anonymity because the government did not authorize its release. ....


http://www.themonitor.com/news/border_2429___article.html/laser_mcallen.html

Costly visa technologies little used here

Area officials wonder: Is it needed or is it money wasted?
Kyle Arnold and Matt Whittaker
May 16, 2007 - 10:58PM

.... When Congress approved the laser visa system in 1996, proponents touted laser visas, which store so-called biometric information, as the next step in securing American borders from unwanted visitors like potential terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. However, an AP article Tuesday said U.S. Customs and Border Protection only checks about 2 percent of all laser visa holders using the digital fingerprint and face matching technology. ....

A $28.6 million contract for laser visa technology was awarded to Virginia-based General Dynamics Corp., which has recently received another contract for $28.5 million, according to the AP article. ....

Inspecting laser visas without looking at the biometric information is no better than “looking at somebody’s driver’s license or library card,” she said. “The country invested a lot of money to bring the system up to date. It’s just amazing that they have gone to this expense … and made border crossers pay a lot of money for ... a card that we don’t even know how to use or don’t use,” she said. ....

In 2001, Mexicans who shopped in McAllen, Brownsville, Laredo and El Paso bought about $3.2 billion worth of goods — roughly 19 percent of all retail sales along the Texas border and 1.9 percent of the state’s retail sales, according to Dallas Fed data. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[LanternWaste]

13. If I thought the American people as a whole had any depth...

If I thought the American people as a whole had any depth of wisdom or intelligence, I'd consider your suggestion.

But since most American's don't appear to look at anything past their own checkbooks, I'll give your suggestion a vote of No Confidences.

[NorthernSpy]

14. yeah, why should Americans get to make decisions for America?

It's only our country, after all.


:argh:

[mondo joe]

17. We do - we get to decide through representation. If you're ready to abandon the

republic and the constitution, you might consider the negative impacts.

[pampango]

21. It is wonderful to hear all of the kind words for our representative

form of government. While some posters, not you, have trashed the intelligence and depth of understanding of the American people, no one has questioned the depth of understanding and honesty of the politicians who serve as our representatives.

When the great unwashed American public agrees with us on an issue, I frequently read that our representatives should stop stalling and pretending that they have a greater depth of understanding of an issue than we voters do, and just do what we want them to do. When we fear that the great unwashed do not agree with us, we urge our representatives to exercise their roles as those with deeper understanding of the great issues of our time and protect those of us who truly understand issues from those who haven't got a clue, but still know how to vote.

I probably should not have posted this as a reply to you, since I essentially agree that the republic and constitution are worth protecting. ;) Sorry about that.

[mondo joe]

22. It's easy for me - all I have to do is consider same sex marriage, or interracial

marriage, or any other issue in which I appreciate rights not being put up to referendum.

[NorthernSpy]

24. I see where you're going with that, but immigration is not a civil rights issue

n/m

[mondo joe]

32. Irrelevant. That's just an arbitrary distinction. NT

[Robson]

35. This is not our country......it's belongs to big business and the political parties

Forget it....this is not our country. It belongs to big business and the politicians and the political parties. If it benefits them, that's all that counts.

[LanternWaste]

55. We do-- indirectly through our elected representatives.

We do-- indirectly through our elected representatives. We're a republic, remember.

[Robson]

56. Have you ever heard of Sen Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy ?

Mike Gravel has always fought for direct democracy.

In case you weren't aware there is an initiative to give power to the people through a Constitutional Amendment and the power of people national initiative to allow the PEOPLE to vote directly on issues that impact us.

http://www.gravel2008.us/
http://ni4d.us/concept.htm

It would be the best thing that ever happened to this country to give balance of power to the people DIRECTLY instead of having 99&% of it rest with parties, the lobbyists, and big business and special interests.

[LanternWaste]

57. Dupe Please delete....

[LanternWaste]

58. I certainly agree that the results would be interesting,

I certainly agree that the results would be interesting, but I doubt very effective or efficient for the country (or the world) in the long run.

I just happen to believe that direct democracy in a country of over 300 million people would be nothing more than popularity contests based on format, style and spin rather than actual functional governance.

[Zywiec]

16. Doesn't Bush support this move toward amnesty?

Enough said!

[dave_p]

19. Doesn't the KKK oppose it?

[Zywiec]

20. Touché

I guess there can be nuts on either side of an argument.

[dave_p]

23. Yep

It's clearly an issue that divides folk a whole lot of non-traditional ways.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. No thank you

I don't want national plebiscites on ANY issue.

[Robson]

38. Why...do you think the bought and paid for politicians know more than you?

I want a stake and a say in my country BEFORE the pols have us bend over and have their way with us, not after.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. I think the average congressman

knows more than the average citizen, yes.

I don't want the average citizen to decide the rights of other people.

What do you think would happen if we had national plebiscites on abortion? On gay rights?

[Robson]

43. Big difference - average Congressmen have special interests - they benefit

Average Americans get screwed by the special interests.

[donco6]

47. Me neither. For the same reasons.

[treestar]

25. See the way it works is, we elect the officials and then they come up

with these bills and vote on them and another elected official agrees.

Read this document: The Constitution of the United States of America. It explains the entire process.

The Native Americans don't want you here, either.

[Jed Dilligan]

26. We have referenda in California

All of them have pushed the state to the right, except 215 (medical marijuana) which was passed but hasn't really become the law of the land.

Referenda are a bad idea. If we sign our names to a right-wing agenda, the right will take it as carte blanche. If we pass a left-leaning law by this method, they can just ignore it because we do not have any direct budgetary or logistical control over any part of the government.


Even if there was a constitutional mechanism for a national referendum, the result of this proposal would be disastrous: mass roundups that will make our nation look even worse than it already does in the eyes of the world. And it still would not stop the migration of people from the south; it would just make it harder on them.

[donco6]

48. Same here in Colorado.

Remember Amendment 2?

[Greyhound]

27. Fatally flawed argument from the beginning. There are two issues, immigration,

which has been totally fucked up by elected panderers, and illegal employment, which is the issue most people are thinking of when they talk about "the immigration problem".

Immigration needs to be greatly expanded and about 90% or more of the rules eliminated.

Laws against Illegal employment need to be rigorously enforced and the penalties, especially financial, dramatically increased.

If this is done we can drop all this foolishness about building fences and rounding up millions of people, which are really just smokescreens for more government funded corporate giveaways, that in the end result in nothing being accomplished, other than more Americans and residents getting screwed.

[NorthernSpy]

28. oh, brooooother...

This article from The Atlanta Business Chronical describes the slashed wages of American workers:

And yet, two decades of steady national income growth has done nothing for the 60 million Americans who have watched their hourly wages decline (in real terms) since the early 1970s. And it has done little for 17 million more who are fully employed but stuck below the poverty line. According to Luttwak, more than half of all jobs throughout the U.S. economy now pay less than they did 20 years ago.

And yet you propose to add to their misery by insourcing more foreigners to compete with them for jobs:

Immigration needs to be greatly expanded and about 90% or more of the rules eliminated.

Which kinda puts your sig line in a whole 'nother light:

"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning" - Warren Buffet


LOL!


Yeah -- and look who's helping!

[Greyhound]

31. Apparently I didn't make myself clear...

We do need new immigrants, especially when the illegal ones can no longer find work because of the other part, illegal employment laws.

The rules I'm speaking of that need to be eliminated are the ones that make it nearly impossible for a Mexican to get in while Filipinos are actively recruited, and a Cuban just has to get here and gets an automatic asylum, a green card, and a truckload of benefits. We need to make the requirements fair, so that legal immigration is a possibility.

Believe me, I do not favor any kind of open borders policy, but the insanity of our existing laws make illegal entry inevitable.

Another aspect of this that I didn't bring up is the unions. We need some kind of federal standards regarding the formation and recruitment rights of unions, as well as strict prohibitions against strike breaking, to counteract these so-called "right to work" laws that some of the more backward states have passed off on their less thoughtful citizens.

The leveling and increase in immigration will reduce the motivation to enter illegally, and the very last thing the rich class wants is to risk huge fines and jail time for hiring illegals.

[LeftishBrit]

29. I think there are some things NOT suitable for referendum...

and immigration, or more generally treatment of minorities, is one of them.

Too easy for mob-spirit to be whipped up, especially when certain elements of the media get involved.

It wouldn't take much, I fear, for the British tabloids to whip up a mob to blame immigrants and asylum-seekers for all the evils in Britain, and to vote to deport them.

Just as there have been mobs whipped up over the decades against so many people: Jews, gays, non-whites, and whoever can serve as a scapegoat.

Sometimes the minority needs to be protected from the majority.

[enfield collector]

30. yes they should, since they're the ones paying for it.

[izzybeans]

33. Sometimes the masses are rational, sometimes they are not. This is not one of those times.

Congress should only act within the boundaries set by the constitution, when the people wish to violate the spirit in that constitution the masses need a check on their power too, just as the branches of the government. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Give us your tired, your poor..." It's push and pull. Sometimes the people provide irrational reactionary discourse to a fire that needs strong leadership to steer us back to our moral principles laid out in quotes above. Sometimes our government provides an irrational reactionary discourse, to which the people must steer it back to its moral mandate.

It takes a special culture to produce a fully democratic society; our culture ain't that special, yet.

[RL3AO]

36. No. We are a representative democracy. Lets keep it that way.

[Madspirit]

37. Constitutional Republic Not Democracy

Nope...most Americans are racist pigs and really ignorant. I am a Texan and I have illegal friends and I will stand by them to the death. You mess with them, you're messing with me and I'm really mean... Just ask anyone on the Falwell threads. I will also hide them, if necessary. ...and they've stolen nothing from you. They usually work at jobs YOU wouldn't piss on. Unfortunately. Don't be disingenuous. Don't lie. You would never do what they do. Most are just here for a better life for themselves and their families.
Lee

[Critters2]

42. Americans would do those jobs, if paid a fair wage.

I've done de-tasseling, a job now done by undocumented workers here. It used to be a rite of passage, the common first job for teenagers here. But we were paid a wage that made it worth the effort. That is no longer the case. But you see, I HAVE done what they do. So that "jobs Americans wouldn't do" crap is just that--crap!! Employers won't hire at minimum wage if they can get away with paying less. Your friends enable them to do that.

Corporations are using you and your friends. It's all about corporate profit.

[Robson]

45. Reality Check Needed.....MOST Americans are not racists and are not ignorant

They work, they pay taxes and they have real life concerns for their jobs, their families and their neighbors about where this country is headed. To say that most Americans are not worthy of this right to make judgement or opinion is to say that most Americans should be restricted from voting as they are ignorant of the issues. Sorry that is wrong my friend.

Most Americans are intimately attuned to what affects them. The problem is that most politicians are intimately influenced by what enriches them, and the corporate media does their best to influence the masses to what will benefit the media.

I'll put the opinions of Americans at large up against the pilfering politicians and controlled media any day of the week.

Years ago some used to believe that only wealthy property owners were astute enough to have the right to vote.....surely you don't believe that?

[Joanne98]

39. YES! K&R!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. No. This Is The Exact Sort Of Thing That Government Is Supposed To Handle.

But it is up to us to hold them accountable (via elections) if they do not do so appropriately.

[Robson]

46. We need a say before they screw us, not after

The basic problem is that Americans don't have the right of establishing binding referendum between elections via petition, and that elections are controlled by big money and the political parties.

The end result is that we the people think we have some control but we have none.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. You have control

you get to elect the people who vote on these issues.

This country would be much WORSE shape if we had national referenda on issues like this.

[x-g.o.p.er]

50. No, because we a re a Representative Republic

and not a simple majority Democracy. Your question, although well intended, flies in the face of what out Founding Fathers intended for our country.

[AZBlue]

51. Um...isn't that why we have elected officials? To decide these matters for us?

Let's not entirely re-write the government - it's good, at least in theory and sometimes even in practice.

[Robson]

52. But our government can be better and more responsive

We have a Constitution and a Judiciary to keep things in check.

I'd prefer a much more responsive Congress and Presidency that followed the will of the people, not vice versa. The power of referendum would do much to give "we the people" needed power, such as on the illegal immigration amnesty issue.

This taking of power is not unique among institutions. As an example corporate shareholders (and the true owners of public corporations) experience the same impotence that US voters have. The CEO and BOD have ultimate control with the shareholders in place more to fund the excesses of the executives, instead of setting ultimate direction and approving major excecutive payouts as owners. Shareholders are hamstrung by laws of corporate governance just as we voters are.

[Marie26]

54. Because this is a republic, not a democracy.

Americans elect the Congresspeople. The Congresspeople make the laws. That's how it's worked for 200+ years - why should this law be any different? If you don't like his vote, don't support him in the next election.