Redefining Illegality

[Faramond]

I'm going to tell Griff not to bother with all the stress and paperwork and waiting of entering the US legally. The people have spoken. The word illegal doesn't actually mean "not-legal", it means "also-legal". Half a million protesters can't be wrong, can they?

[halplm]

of course, that's called english.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ooh, tricky, tricky issue, Faramond, and one about which I have decidedly mixed feelings.

In case anyone is not sure what Faramond is referring to there was a huge protest this weekend in Los Angeles against a proposed bill in Congress that would make it a felony to be in the U.S. illegally and would make it crime to dispense aid to the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants. The protests have continued to spread to other cities.

The bill in question has passed U.S. House of Representatives. The Senate is working on a more moderate version. President Bush, too, it taking a more moderate position as well, angering some in his own party. He has called for a limited amnesty for some illegal immigrants - the so-called "guest worker" program. In an unusual pairing, Senators McCain and Kennedy have drafted a bill that would allow illegal immigrants to become eligible for permanent residency after working for six years. This is supported by many immigration advocates and employers.

Despite the size of the protests, polls show that most Americans oppose making it easier for illegal immigrants to become legal workers or citizens, and that the United States is not doing enough along its borders to keep illegal immigrants out.

Personally, I think it is difficult problem, with no easy answers. The illegal immigrants mostly come from Mexico and mostly seek to escape extreme poverty. Many have become productive contributors to the U.S. economy. On the other hand, as Faramond points out, it isn't fair to those seeking to follow the law and enter the country legally to simply allow the illegal immigrants carte blanche. I don't really have an answer to the question. I am curious to see what others have to say.

A note of caution, however. This is one of those hot button issues that tend to raise people's temperatures pretty quickly. Extra care should be taken to keep the discussion civil, even where strong feelings are expressed.

[Holbytla]

If someone is seeking asylum in this country as a means of avoiding political or religious persecution, there is a means to enter the country.
If someone chooses to work here, become a citizen, or what have you, there is a means to enter the country.

What am I missing here?

Illegal aliens should either become legal aliens or shown the border.

[Cerin]

I think Griff should certainly follow the proper procedure! It could mean no end of difficulty in the future if she did not. I think it would be well worth the wait to do it right (of course, that's easy for me to say).

[Faramond]

Right, well I should say more.

Obviously there are huges differences between the case of someone like Griff and those on whose behalf these protests are being made. And yet ... the law must be applied uniformly. The law should not be blind to circumstance, but nor should law-breaking be excused because of circumstance.

Some people prefer the term "undocumented person" or "undocumented worker" to "illegal alien". Of course both terms are true.

Should the United States attempt to secure its borders? That's not just a rhetorical question. Is there any point in doing this?

If the answer is yes, then I don't think it will work in the long run to secure most of the borders and point of entries but look the other way when it comes to one border.

Why does President Bush support limited amnesty? Is it because many of his supporters are rich businessmen who like depending on cheap labor?

It is often said the illegal immigrants are taking jobs that other Americans won't do anyway. And this is true. Except, why won't other Americans do them? The biggest reason is that they don't pay very well, and working conditions aren't so great. Why? I would guess in part because the labor pool for these particular jobs has been flooded with undocumented workers willing to work for these pay levels and conditions.

My guess is that if illegal immigration was magically ended someone would eventually fill these vacated jobs at higher pay and the price of some things would go up for everyone. But I'm not an economist, so maybe I'm wrong.

In most cases I don't believe illegal immigrants are a blight on our society, or anything like that. I just think that laws should be enforced, and I think the US should enforce its borders.

I will not accept that the solution is just to look the other way. I think this is what amnesty is, in effect. Either put some teeth behind the current laws, or make it far easier for Mexicans to immigrate legally. But I don't think those who have flouted the law so far should be given a free pass, even if we later decide those laws were bad policy. Those laws weren't wrong, and I think that's an important distinction. Controlling one's borders, or attempting to do so, isn't wrong. But the US standard for letting people in may be bad policy, as many believe.

[Jnyusa]

Well, I have no ambivalent feelings about this issue at all! I am absolutely opposed to weak immigration laws and think that the biggest problem we face now is enforcement. But, as usual, we are throwing the wrongs perps in jail.

Faramond:

the law must be applied uniformly

Bingo! The first thing we have to do is repeal the Walters McCurran Act of 1948, allowing immediate and unquestioned entry to anyone coming from any country that the U.S. has designated "communist."

It is appalling that Cuba can empty its prisons into the U.S. and Dade County had to hand them welfare checks and free medical care, while Haitian boat people are put in concentration camps.

The reason for the revolving door on the Rio Grande is the fact that those who hire illegal immigrants ARE NOT PROSECUTED. (Sorry for shouting.) It is the immigrants and coyotes who are deported or fined/jailed and it should be the employers who do everything but put up billboards along the border.

What's so great about Mexican workers? It's not just that they will work for a lower wage. None of the labor laws of the U.S. apply to them - no social security contributions, no unemployment contributions, no disability insurance contributions, no health care benefits, no vacation benefits, no OSHA laws. You can starve them, fire them, spray them with insecticide, murder them and leave them by a roadside and no one cares.

Why does President Bush support limited amnesty? Is it because many of his supporters are rich businessmen who like depending on cheap labor?

Yes.

It is often said the illegal immigrants are taking jobs that other Americans won't do anyway. And this is true. Except, why won't other Americans do them? The biggest reason is that they don't pay very well, and working conditions aren't so great. Why? I would guess in part because the labor pool for these particular jobs has been flooded with undocumented workers willing to work for these pay levels and conditions.

Yes.

My guess is that if illegal immigration was magically ended someone would eventually fill these vacated jobs at higher pay and the price of some things would go up for everyone. But I'm not an economist, so maybe I'm wrong.

Well, I am an economist and I can tell you what would happen. The price of some things would go up and the price of other things would go down. People would adjust their buying habits to the new price structure.

As long as the Treasury/Fed does not print/release more money into the economy, the general price level would not change.

Finally, I'm waiting for someone to hammer the Senate with the question WHY the NAFTA did not magically solve this problem the way they all claimed it would when they cast their corrupt votes in 1994.

• Repeal Walters McCurran so that the playing field is even
• Prosecute employers - throw them in jail for good long terms, even the ones who are federal judges
• Make US law extant over all firms domiciled in the US so that treaties like NAFTA are not thin disguises for beggar-thy neighbor capital mobility
• Up the border patrol.

Illegal immigration will 'magically' disappear.

Jn

[Túrin Turambar]

Immigration is a very hot-button issue here as well, although the circumstances are different. The United States has a land border with Mexico, and so it can’t possibly stop illegal entry entirely. Therefore, there’s a lot of questions associated with what to do with illegal immigrants who are already in the country.

On the whole, I see two questions –

1) Who should be allowed into the United States?
2) What should happen to people who come into the United States despite not meeting the requirements laid down in 1)?

‘Shown the border’ is a logical answer to 2). Still, questions start to arise when you have someone illegally entering the United States and not being discovered for twenty years, in which time they’ve started a business, married and started a family. Would it be right to send them back to Mexico? What about someone else who has spent 20 years in the US, but has spent that entire time picking strawberries for a living? Do they have less of a claim to stay than the other person? If so, why exactly (I’m thinking of a legal argument here)?

I’ve had some experience grappling with these sorts of issues when I did some research on Australia’s (quite tough) illegal immigration laws last year.

[Jnyusa]

Lord M., one of the main arguments being made by the pro-Amnesty groups is that (a) families will be separated if the illegals in the family are shown the border, and (b) the length of time required for legal immigration leaves families separated longer than is humane.

We've always provided a fast-track for immediate family members, both for entry and for citizenship, but the claims take a lot longer to process when immigration levels are very high, as they are from our poorer neighbors. Family hardship would be eased, I think, if the immigration rates could be slowed down legitimately, that is, by improving instead of decimating the economic prospects of Latin America and the Caribbean.

But the other problem we confront is that legal immigrants often want to bring elderly parents into the country, and these elderly go immediately onto the public dole. We really just can't afford it.

Jn

[nerdanel]

Specific question for anyone who has knowledge:

What are the pros and cons of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants from specific countries, while simultaneously denying it to illegal immigrants from other countries?

I've heard proposals to grant amnesty to Mexican illegal immigrants only, and I'm not sure I understand why they should be given special preference. I'd like to hear if there are any good reasons for favoring them (or any other nationality) at specific times. I was on friendly terms some years ago with some Indian illegal immigrants who wanted very much to attend university but could not because of their status. If there is to be blanket amnesty, I hope that it would apply to them so that they could do something with their lives other than work underhandedly as waiters at an Indian restaurant.

Another question, if anyone is in the know:

It seems that municipalities often have knowledge of illegal immigrants that they do not share with the INS. For instance, I was just reading this morning that San Francisco's centralized intake system for the homeless photographs and fingerprints all welfare recipients, but guarantees them that neither the INS nor law enforcement will be allowed access to the database. I assume school systems would also have knowledge of illegal immigrants, as their children have a constitutional right to education in our public schools at taxpayer expense.

Since I've never had a course in immigration law:
Is there any way for the INS to obtain this information or for Congress to exert strong pressure (via some sort of funding mechanism) on localities to surrender it? [I feel certain that I'm forgetting some basic con law principle that would answer this question, but oh well.]

A couple of thoughts on the original topic:

- As a child of two legal immigrants, and as someone with many friends who are currently embroiled in the legal immigration process, my gut instinct is to say, "If you're illegal, you're out of here." This is particularly true because my father really did come here at first on a student visa with no money whatsoever, and worked three jobs while in graduate school, nonetheless scraping through only because a kind family at his church gave him a place to stay. This makes me less inclined to view lack of resources as an excuse for ignoring the law.
- I feel intuitively troubled by providing welfare assistance, public education, and other services to people who are in this country illegally, so long as our own citizens have so many unmet needs.
- To the extent that illegal immigrants are able to send money out of this country, this makes me doubly furious - they are not paying taxes AND they are not even recirculating the money into our economy.
That's about as conservative as I can get before beginning to feel uncomfortable about it. So then, my heart inevitably starts bleeding, and I think:
- Our government spends so many billions of dollars on other things that trouble me - for instance, much of our Middle Eastern foreign policy. To the extent that we spend some fraction of that to provide assistance to illegal immigrants seeking to gain a better life in this country, is it really such a terrible thing?
- There's something that feels disturbingly self-righteous to me about my suddenly-developed pious reverence for the law as regards this particular point. It's definitely easy for me to talk, as someone who was born here. Even my father - yes, he struggled and bootstrapped - but he came with a college education and was able to get citizenship at a time when engineers were apparently fast-tracked through the process (the 1970s). And some of my friends who are in the process have parents who are paying tens of thousands of dollars not only for their graduate education, but for their living expenses such that they don't even have to work (note: I understand that their employment options are constrained severely on a student visa). Their pious reverence for the immigration laws smacks just as much of self-righteousness. Yes, they're going through the process legally...but anyone who can afford (or whose parents can afford to pay for them) to live quite nicely in cities like Boston and San Francisco without working...is in a different universe than a migrant worker who is picking fruit in the fields from sunup to sundown.

I guess maybe what's bothering me is that if I was a poor Mexican (or heck, poor Indian) who sincerely desired a better life but did not have the education or the wherewithal to go through the legal immigration process, I feel that it's likely that I would go the illegal immigration route without apologies or regrets. If I was an educated, middle-class or wealthy person from a developed country, I would follow the immigration laws. Are there many people here who can sincerely say that their conduct wouldn't vary depending on which of those two categories they fell into? [ETA: not intended as a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious]

[Holbytla]

I guess maybe what's bothering me is that if I was a poor Mexican (or heck, poor Indian) who sincerely desired a better life but did not have the education or the wherewithal to go through the legal immigration process, I feel that it's likely that I would go the illegal immigration route. Are there many people here who can sincerely say they would not consider it?

I don't buy that for a second.
They illegally cross because they know they cannot enter legally.
Nothing to do with education. We have a cap of immigrants per year, and it is necessary to keep our government from being swamped.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

nerdanel, you've pretty much summed up my own mixed feelings on the issue (even though my personal history is of course quite different then yours).

[vison]

The US/Mexican border is an imaginary line on the Earth. On one side is poverty and lack of opportunity. On the other is unimaginable wealth and opportunity for anyone who is willing to take it. What a strange situation! That imaginary line.

There is now a movement afoot in Canada to get Mexican "guest workers". As a matter of fact, there are already thousands of Mexicans who work on Ontario farms for most of the year, beginning with planting and going on to the tomato and tobacco harvest. Theoretically they are protected under Canadian labour laws, but of course the system is far from perfect. In BC we have a large population of immigrants from India to do our stoop labour. They are almost all in the power of labour contractors and the labour contractors are notoriously crooked. Many of these labourers are old, and many work only for their Unemployment Benefit: they get paid no wages, but the contractors remit premiums on the unpaid wages and the workers can draw the unemployment cheques for the rest of the year. A rotten system. Try to sort it out and the shrieks of "racism" ring throughout the land.

I know American farmers who hire Mexican workers. Some of these employers are decent people who treat their employees well, abiding by the labour laws even when they suspect the employee is an illegal. But I know of one large farm in Utah where the illegals live underground (I mean, literally in bunkhouses dug into the dirt) and are paid less than minimum wage and are unlikely to complain.

Everyone I know who hires these people praises their work ethic and ambition.

I guess a total amnesty would be wrong, but my heart is on the side of the workers. My Scottish grandpa and grandma came to Canada at a time when any British person was automatically entitled to come here, and my Norwegian grandpa jumped from a whaling ship in New England, lived in Texas for some time, then just wandered North to Canada. He never did become a citizen of either the US or Canada. My late father-in-law came here from Norway on a freighter and jumped ship in Halifax knowing two English words: dollar and doughnut. He liked the latter, but had none of the first! After decades in Canada he got papers and became a citizen.

I don't know about the States, but up here people are constantly ranting and raving about immigrants, both legal and illegal, who are on welfare. Yet, in fact, this is not common. Most immigrants work and work very hard, and I bet the same is true in the States.

I think President Bush is between a rock and a hard place. I don't think it's just his rich friends, I honestly think he's trying to manage a very hard problem, and god knows I am no fan of Pres. Bush. I would think the worst of him every time! But something has to be done. Maybe the US should invade Mexico and install democracy and freedom there? It wouldn't mean shipping soldiers overseas, after all, so should be a bit cheaper than Iraq.


Sorry. Couldn't resist........

[Jnyusa]

tp: I guess maybe what's bothering me is that if I was a poor Mexican (or heck, poor Indian) who sincerely desired a better life but did not have the education or the wherewithal to go through the legal immigration process, I feel that it's likely that I would go the illegal immigration route without apologies or regrets.

vison: Maybe the US should invade Mexico and install democracy and freedom there?

Which brings us to level 2 of the problem. The US already has invaded Mexico. Our beach-head is the maquiladora - the factory zone. No collective bargaining, no child labor laws, no maximum work week, no benefits, no environmental law ... AND ... no taxes. No taxes on the company, that is.

And the US does have troops in Mexico, though you won't see that reported above the fold. Have to protect those US companies from discontented locals.

Maybe if the US would get the heck out of Mexico, they would have a shot at democracy and freedom. I've been waiting all my life to see that one happen.

One always has to ask, cui bono? We systematically exploit the economy of Mexico inside Mexico. So who creates the supply of impoverished workers who have nothing to lose by risking their lives crossing the border? And who benefits when those workers survive and arrive? Connect the dots.

vison: I don't know about the States, but up here people are constantly ranting and raving about immigrants, both legal and illegal, who are on welfare.

Illegal immigrants can't access welfare in the U.S. so I don't think that's such a big problem for public coffers. I think that the only social benefit they receive is public education for their children. Personally, I don't mind making that expenditure, though it falls disproportionately on the poor as long as ed. is funded by property taxes. But changing the school tax base would solve that problem, and this is something that should be done anyway.

The big 'welfare' debate here over the past three years or so has been the stress on medicare from legal immigration by the elderly parents of legal immigrants. There was a house bill proposed to exclude or limit immigrant benefits, but I don't think it has gotten anywhere.

tp: What are the pros and cons of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants from specific countries, while simultaneously denying it to illegal immigrants from other countries?

As I said, we do discriminate (and always have) based on country of origin. I think this is an appalling policy when applied to initial entry, and it would be even more appalling if applied to amnesty.


It seems that municipalities often have knowledge of illegal immigrants that they do not share with the INS. For instance, I was just reading this morning that San Francisco's centralized intake system for the homeless photographs and fingerprints all welfare recipients, but guarantees them that neither the INS nor law enforcement will be allowed access to the database. I assume school systems would also have knowledge of illegal immigrants, as their children have a constitutional right to education in our public schools at taxpayer expense.

I doubt that the information available to municipalities would be comprehensive enough to be useful to the INS. Illegal immigrants cannot apply for welfare (administered by the state) unless they use a fraudulent social security number and give a valid address (checks are always mailed). The SS numbers are cross-referenced, so this would be a very high-risk strategy - giving both a fraudulent number that is likely to be discovered and a correct address. I would guess that there are elaborate scams out there for getting around this, but if the scam is truly effective then the states truly don't have the info to give to the INS.

You don't have to show proof of citizenship to enroll your child in school. Schools might suspect that certain parents are illegal, but there are 12 million illegal immmigrants in the US and the INS is not going to check people out one by one based on a principal's suspicions.

Soup kitchens and homeless shelters? Not worth the bother. Really. And I would guess, from watching TV crime shows, that it is important for police to be able to look the other way regarding immigration if an illegal has needed information. I can easily imagine that this is the case now the NAFTA enables drug traffickers to truck from Juchitan to Fairbanks without so much as a wave to customs.

The law that is before the House right now simply has language that is too broad with regard to charities ... and I'm rather sure that the Senate will modify it. They're aiming at the Moslem charities that have been used as fronts for Al-Qayda fundraising, hence the reference to clergy ministering to illegals because so much of that fundraising is broadcast inside the mosques under false premises. I'm sure they were not thinking about LA soup kitchens serving restaurant leftovers to Mexicans. Now that the Catholic Church has publicly opposed this provision the Senate will need to tone up the language so that it clearly applies only to support for criminal activity.

Jn

[vison]

I was aware of the maquiladora, system and its ramifications, but I was not aware that there are US troops in Mexico. I agree with your assessment of the situation!

Many Canadians, and I am one, are quite unsatisfied with the NAFTA, for a variety of reasons. One of the main reasons is that the US ignores NAFTA regulations that are inconvenient to US businesses, the Softwood Lumber dispute being the absolutely classic example. The US has charged millions of dollars in illegal countervail duties on Canadian softwood lumber because Southern US lumber interests proclaim that BC's lumber industry is "unfairly" subsidizing BC lumber companies. Every trade panel, including the WTO, finds on Canada's side, but the US keeps on doing it. To add insult to injury, the illegal duties are PAID TO THE US LUMBER INTERESTS!!!!! Can you bloody imagine?

And the other thing, weird though it is, is that some of the US lumber companies operate here and so wind up paying duties to themselves. Weyerhauser being one. Madness.

The other thing is, that according to the NAFTA, if the US decides they want to buy something from Canada, such as our water, we cannot refuse to sell it. I'm not talking about truckloads of bottled water, but about rivers.

Rightly or wrongly, we think the NAFTA was almost entirely designed to suit US interests. It's often hard to see any benefit to us.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The Senate Judiciary committee approved the Kennedy-McCain bill today. Very interesting to see the Democrats vote in a solid block and the Republicans fractured.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate Judiciary Committee approved sweeping election-year legislation Monday that clears the way for 11 million illegal aliens to seek U.S. citizenship, a victory for demonstrators who had spilled into the streets by the hundreds of thousands demanding better treatment for immigrants.

With a bipartisan coalition in control, the committee also voted down proposed criminal penalties on immigrants found to be in the country illegally. It approved a new temporary program allowing entry for 1.5 million workers seeking jobs in the agriculture industry.

"All Americans wanted fairness and they got it this evening," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who played a pivotal role in drafting the legislation.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said he hoped President Bush would participate in efforts to fashion consensus legislation. "The only thing that's off the table is inaction," said Graham, who voted for the committee bill.


The 12-6 vote broke down along unusual lines, with a majority of the panel's Republicans opposed to the measure even though their party controls the Senate.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., seeking re-election this fall in his border state, said the bill offered amnesty to illegal immigrants, and sought unsuccessfully to insert tougher provisions. He told fellow committee members that the economy would turn sour some day and Americans workers would want the jobs that now go to illegal immigrants. They will ask, "how could you have let this happen," he added.

Committee chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania was one of four Republicans to support the bill, but he signaled strongly that some of the more controversial provisions could well be changed when the measure reaches the Senate floor. That is "very frequently" the case when efforts to reach a broad bipartisan compromise falter, he noted.

In general, the bill is designed to strengthen enforcement of U.S. borders, regulate the flow into the country of so-called guest workers and determine the legal future of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

The bill would double the Border Patrol and authorizes a "virtual wall" of unmanned vehicles, cameras and sensors to monitor the U.S.-Mexico border.

It also allows more visas for nurses and agriculture workers, and shelters humanitarian organizations from prosecution if they provide non-emergency assistance to illegal residents.

The most controversial provision would permit illegal aliens currently in the country to apply for citizenship without first having to return home, a process that would take at least six years or more. They would have to pay a fine, learn English, study American civics, demonstrate they had paid their taxes and take their place behind other applicants for citizenship, according to aides to Kennedy.

"Well over 60 percent of Americans in all the polls I see think it's OK to have temporary workers, but you do not have to make them citizens," said Kyl.

"We have a fundamental difference between the way you look at them and the way I look at them," Kennedy observed later.

Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, a potential presidential contender who worked with Kennedy on the issue, told reporters the street demonstrations had made an impact. "All those people who were demonstrating are not here illegally. They are the children and grandchildren" of those who may have been, he said.

The committee met as several thousand demonstrators rallied at the foot of the Capitol. Many were members of the clergy who donned handcuffs and sang "We Shall Overcome," the unofficial anthem of the civil rights era.

After a weekend of enormous rallies - a crowd of as many as 500,000 demonstrators in Los Angeles - thousands of students walked out of class in California and Texas to protest proposals to crack down on illegal immigrants.

"Do you see the community? Do you see how many people didn't go to work today," asked Janet Padron, attending a rally in Michigan.

Her remark underscored one of the issue's complexities.

Senators on all sides of the issue agreed that illegal workers hold thousands of jobs that otherwise would go unfilled at the wages offered.

The agriculture industry is "almost entirely dependent on undocumented workers," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

In purely political terms, the issue threatened to fracture Republicans as they head into the midterm election campaign - one group eager to make labor readily available for low-wage jobs in industries such as agriculture, construction and meatpacking, the other determined to place a higher emphasis on law enforcement.

That was a split Bush was hoping to avoid after a political career spent building support for himself and his party from the fast-growing Hispanic population.

"America should not have to choose between being a welcoming society and being a lawful society," Bush said at a naturalization ceremony for new citizens. "We can be both at the same time."

Bush has said he favors a guest worker program, but it is unclear whether the administration would insist on a provision to require illegal immigrants already in the country to return home before they are allowed to apply for citizenship.

At several critical points, committee Democrats showed unity while Republicans splintered. In general, Graham, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio, who is seeking re-election this fall, voted with the Democrats. That created a majority that allowed them to shape the bill to their liking.

Feinstein won approval for the five-year program to permit as many as 1.5 million agriculture workers into the country. "It will provide the agriculture industry with a legal work force and offer agriculture workers a path to citizenship," she said. The vote was 11-5, with Republicans casting all the votes in opposition.

Kennedy prevailed on a proposal to allow an additional 400,000 green cards for future immigrants, regardless of the industry where they find jobs.

[Erunáme]

Obviously, my position is very much the same as Faramond's as I spent months and a fair chunk of change (and still am) to get Iavas over. It angers me that we went through so much trouble and waiting yet there are people who sneak in.

It is often said the illegal immigrants are taking jobs that other Americans won't do anyway. And this is true. Except, why won't other Americans do them? The biggest reason is that they don't pay very well, and working conditions aren't so great. Why? I would guess in part because the labor pool for these particular jobs has been flooded with undocumented workers willing to work for these pay levels and conditions.

My guess is that if illegal immigration was magically ended someone would eventually fill these vacated jobs at higher pay and the price of some things would go up for everyone. But I'm not an economist, so maybe I'm wrong.

This is what I thought as well.

What is the purpose of immigration restrictions? Is it economic? I don't know much about economics either, but it would seem to me that if immigrants from poor countries were allowed to come in freely, wages would be driven down as employers would be able to find people willing to do a job for less pay. I don't think this would affect the more educated jobs that many in the middle class hold, but I would think it would affect the jobs people in the lower class have. Jny, please set me straight if I'm wrong.

Though, like nerdanel, I do have a bit of mixed feelings. I do feel for people who live in a poor country and don't really have a way to make a better life for themselves. But I feel more strongly about these issues that nerdanel brough up, I think:

- I feel intuitively troubled by providing welfare assistance, public education, and other services to people who are in this country illegally, so long as our own citizens have so many unmet needs.
- To the extent that illegal immigrants are able to send money out of this country, this makes me doubly furious - they are not paying taxes AND they are not even recirculating the money into our economy.

Basically it's a take without any giving relationship and that's just not right. I don't think the protesters are being reasonable or rational. In Dallas, there was a school that staged a walk-out protest and in one clip a teenage girl explained why they were protesting. She said they didn't think it was fair and they don't want "them" telling us what to do. There were shots of a lot of kids waving Mexican flags and chanting "Mexico". I'm not sure they really know what they're protesting. The message they are giving is that they want an immigration free for all.

*sigh*

I'm not against Bush's temporary worker program, at least for the migrant workers who pick fruit or work the fields.

[halplm]

I'm sorry I haven't read all that people have said but it's very simple.

there are plenty of people in the US that will do the jobs that illegals do... they simply require things like MINIMUM WAGE. Companies that hire illegals are doing it to make more money, and they make more money by exploiting people that will take less money, and not complain because it's still better than what they get in their own country.

It's illegal, and should have repercussions.

As for conditions in Mexico, it may seem callous, but that's not our problem. I have issues with american companies that farm out laber to Mexico, or China, or wherever it's cheapest... and I think something should be done about that as well... but that's not an excuse for illegals to come here and exploit our country.

I drive by a group waiting for work every single day... nothing is ever done and everyone knows what they're doing there... it makes no sense.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm not sure they really know what they're protesting.

Unfortunately, I think that is very true (and not just about the immigration protests).

[Frelga]

Indeed, V.

My impression is that the purpose of the immigration laws and their enforcement is not to prevent illegal immigration. It is to keep immigrants terrorized just enough so that their employers can pay them pennies for hard work in dangerous conditions, but not enough that these people leave.

As a few others, hal most recently, said, it's the employers who create the situation, and the employers who need to be penalized. Anybody foresees that happening? Me neither.

Senators on all sides of the issue agreed that illegal workers hold thousands of jobs that otherwise would go unfilled at the wages offered.

The agriculture industry is "almost entirely dependent on undocumented workers," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

Why is that? What would happen if these workers were no longer here to work Californian lettuce and strawberry fields? What would happen to food prices if agricultural industry had to pay minimum wage, health insurance, payroll taxes, sick leave, etc.?

As for conditions in Mexico, it may seem callous, but that's not our problem.

Callous or not, it's the miserable conditions in Mexico that drive these people to risk their lives at the border. If they could provide for their families without leaving home, they would not be here, presumably. So in that sense, yes, it is our problem.