IMMIGRATION RED-HOT CAMPAIGN ISSUE

Other than the agricultural industry, what industry needs guest workers? Is there any way to maintain a reasonable market price for agriculture and not pay the level of wages now paid for harvesting? In effect, American citizens would not do this work for the present wages. Would you like to pay three times the current price for a head of lettuce?

But the illegals are also doing a lot of non-agricultural work that, once upon a time, was done by legals or citizens. And, based on the unemployment rate in some inner-cities of young males, there is labor to do these jobs. I believe that many urbanites do not want the inner city folks to work in their neighborhood fruit markets, supermarkets, etc. I believe, Americans' biases run the gamut of humanity.

The situation is a "sticky wicket."

Again... I don't think any industry needs guest workers. If we need workers, we should give them green cards (i.e. bring them permanently and put them on a path to citizenship). There may be a need for workers. There is never a need for guest workers.

Agriculture is a dirty, immoral business. There was just a story about slavery in Florida where workers were beaten and locked up against their will.

There is a movement to raise the workers pay for tomato workers 1 cent a pound (I would be willing to pay this gladly), yet the tomato growers association is punishing employers who raise the wage. Is this anything but evil?

There is often a debate about whether more workers are needed in several industries (including in the tech industry where I work).

If we need workers we should treat them as human beings.

The Agriculture business is just the worst since their workers tend to be the most vulnerable and the growers are happy to take advantage of it.

Slavery in the US should be a thing of the past.

At least the Republicans have gotten the message that the public is demanding a tough stance on immigration issues. It is all about votes.

First clashes in Iowa set tone over immigration

Republican Tancredo drops 2008 bid, backs Romney
Iowa's moderate Republicans left out in 2008 race

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain lost ground to his presidential rivals over support for what his opponents called "amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York stumbled in a recent debate when asked to define her position on illegal immigrants and drivers licenses.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who leads the Republican field in Iowa, had to backtrack on comments he once made that supported providing education for the children of illegal immigrants.

As campaigning builds for the Democratic and Republican nominations for the U.S. presidential election in November, taking a tough stance on illegal immigration has become vital to their chances of being selected to represent their parties.

"It is like taking an oath in blood," said Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the nonpartisan National Migration Institute think tank, of the scrabble by candidates to prove their bona fides on the issue before the January 3 Iowa caucuses.

"(This time around) everyone wants to know that candidates will have a position on illegal immigration," he added.

The question of what to do with 12 million illegal immigrants has been a hot-button topic for months in the United States, where a bill seeking tougher enforcement and a path to legal status for many was killed by the U.S. Senate in June.

In Iowa it has joined concerns over the wobbly economy and handling of the war in Iraq as a defining issue at the start of the grueling state-by-state contests.

Other hopefuls who have had to come into line on illegal immigration in the Midwestern state include Republican Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who was shamed in recent weeks into firing a landscaper employing illegal immigrants who worked at his residence.

Rudy Giuliani, whose lead in national polls has shrunk or in some cases disappeared, had to roll back his stated tolerance for illegal immigrants as New York's Republican mayor after facing attacks that he provided them with sanctuary.

Analysts say illegal immigration became a key issue for candidates in the long, drawn-out race owing to the shifting demographics in the state hosting the first caucus.

"Iowa happens to be one of those states that has had a large influx of illegal immigrants in recent years, and when you go very fast from zero to 60, it has an impact," said Tamar Jacoby, senior research fellow at the Manhattan Institute think tank, who supported the bipartisan Senate immigration bill.

"We are starting out in an area where the campaign polls say go for broke, make hay on this," she added.

SETTING THE TONE OF THE DEBATE

Iowa is just the first in a series of state-by-state contests to decide who will replace President George W. Bush following the November 4 presidential election.

While candidates are presently struggling to demonstrate their tough stance on illegal immigration, analysts say differences between the Democrats and Republicans will likely open up as the general election campaign begins following their respective party conventions in August and September.

"It's too risky for the candidates to stick their necks out too far ... particularly in the primary season ... they see it almost as a no win situation," said Bruce Merrill, a political analyst at Arizona State University.

"When the primaries are over, it will become more of a partisan issue," he added.

Analysts say the Republicans are likely to reach out to their base with a hard line message hoping to parlay discontent over illegal immigration into votes in November, and will be unlikely to move back toward the middle ground.

"Now, McCain and Giuliani have given themselves some ability to run back to the center, but not much," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which backs immigration reform.

Democrats may soften their rhetoric in coming months to reach out to moderates seeking a pragmatic solution and to Hispanic voters, the country's fastest growing bloc.

brown says he supports illegals out of compassion. But where is his compassion for the citizen workers who they supplant, or the workers who have had their wages driven down, or the taxpayers who must pay for the social welfare benefits paid to illegals and their dependents? I wonder why he is unconcerned about the damage caused by illegals to our environment.

Huckabee dogged by immigration issue Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:41 PM by Chuck Todd


From NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy
ON THE ROAD, IA - So what happened to Tom Tancredo's Iowa supporters after his 'big announcement' earlier this week?

We know that the former-candidate threw his support behind Mitt Romney, but on Friday Tancredo's Iowa state chairman Bill Salier announced that he was supporting Fred Thompson. And while riding through Muscatine on the Huckabus this week, Mike Huckabee was confronted by a very well informed former Tancredo staffer who argued with the Iowa frontrunner over the issue of immigration.

Deb Miller described herself as "looking" for a candidate after her old boss dropped out of the race, and she came to the afternoon rally at the Rendez Vous Banquet Hall equipped with a stack of information compiled from Newsmax and ImmigrationWatchdog.com to help her with her search.

Reading from the papers in her lap, Miller asked Huckabee about a passage from his book that described enforcing current immigration laws as "shear folly" and about three incidents from his time governor that showed questionable strength on combating illegal immigration.

Huckabee addressed her issues point by point, defending his immigration record as compassionate but firm. On giving welfare benefits to illegal aliens:

"The point was not, that I supported giving benefits, the deal was I opposed creating another law to do what the law already did," Huckabee said, on his battle against a state legislator to defeat a law that would have curtailed the distribution of welfare benefits in Arkansas. According to Huckabee, the fight was to prevent redundant legislation, not protect illegal immigrant rights.

On his conflict with Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding the raid of an Arkansas factory that employed illegal immigrants, Huckabee said that his issues surrounded ICE's failure to notify local authorities and to properly care for the children of the immigrants who were arrested.

"You should never allow a six month old, a three month old or a six year old to wonder where his mother and father are," Huckabee said. "Nothing can be more traumatic to a child and I don't care if that child is here illegally. I don't want to be a part of a country that would ignore the humane treatment of a child."

But despite Huckabee's best efforts - including a one-on-one conversation after his speech in which he asked her to take a second glance at his record - the generally undecided Miller was still unconvinced.

"The scripture says we're supposed to obey the laws of the land," Miller said. "As a Christian, that was my question. You know, how can you justify furthering - rewarding someone who has broken law upon law upon law."

Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are the only candidates left in the race who truly address the immigration issue, Miller said, but "they don't have a chance," and so she is seriously considering following her old boss towards the Romney camp.

After it became clear that Miller was not going to be persuaded by Huckabee's stance on illegal immigration, the candidate made one last ditch effort for her vote, but couched it in his now infamous good humor: "I hope you'll take a look at our plan and vote for me before it's over, and if not, then stay home that night."

You logic is continually flawed Advocate...

First, the immigration issue as a "crisis" as manufactured by a Republican party, back by its conservative base, because they don't have any other issue they can use politically.

This is a wedge issue-- which is why it is the Republicans who are pandering to the loud, obnouxious right wing of their party and the Democrats who are taking a moderate, compassionate position.

Second, your strategy is to pit the vulnerable against the vulnerable. This is the oldest trick in the book.

When civil rights was first an issue... they said that having compassion for African Americans would hurt white Americans. The taxpayer support lark is still being used against African Americans (as well as illegal people).

(On a strange tangent... this argument is also being used against homosexuals by saying that letting them marry will hurt straight people).

If you are really worried about taxes... then a path to citizenship is the way to go.

Citizens pay taxes. Citizens get an education. Citizens contribute. Every time we have given a group of people full rights as citizens -- Woman's sufferage, Civil Rights-- the rest of America hasn't suffered.... no, we have prospered.

I don't speak to many people (by choice), but I listen to a lot of talk radio. I never heard the opinion that allowing homosexuals to marry would supposedly hurt straight people?

I thought, whether it is for religious reasons or just preserving society's status quo that straight people want to leave for their children to live in, there are some people that just don't want to "normalize" homosexuality with the union of marriage.

I think the whole marriage question for homosexuals is really a red herring for the straight population. I believe much of the straight population would be very perturbed if they knew what percentage of the homosexual population were in the closet, and therefore, marriage would not be an option.

In a way though this immigration issue is similar, I believe, to the gay rights issue, since both have advocates that are trying to "normalize" both groups in society. In other words, immigration rights advocates, regardless of their reasons, want to make illegals as good as legals. And, gay rights advocates want to make homosexuality just like being heterosexuals. Well, for illegals, the law says they are not equal to legals, and for gays society says they are different from heterosexuals. If I'm wrong in these perceptions/observations, please advise.

Come back in another 100 years, and these two above givens may have changed. Many people's perceptions and beliefs don't change overnight; sometimes they barely change in a millenium.

brown is setting up lots of straw men, who are not at issue. This is about illegals who are really flooding into our country. They are a huge presence in the Carolinas, and are taking many jobs from the working- class citizens. Also, it is self-perpetuating inasmuch an employer MUST hire illegals in order to compete with the other employers who are using illegals. This, of course, attracts even more illegals.

At 300 million, the country is full, so we don't need or want a flood of poor people from other countries.

The Republicans are taking a hard line for self-serving purposes, but I welcome this since any measures to stem the tide of illegals are badly needed.

How have you determined that the country is "full" with 300 million people? Maybe NYC and Los Angeles can be considered "full" by some. What about Wyoming, or North Dakota?

I don't doubt that in your neck of the woods there are illegals that are taking jobs from citizens. Naturally, this helps business owners and corporations that hire them to have a greater profit, having paid lower wages. And, these illegals will not be here illegally by retirment age, so their labor won't take money out of the Social Security System.

There really is a solution, but many people don't want it. That solution is higher education for citizens. For example, while China is advancing economically by becoming a factory for the world's consumer items, India is not polluting their country the same way, and advancing economically by becoming a "brain" for outsourced white collar functions.

So, perhaps, illegals should be looked at like human automation/or outsourcing of jobs that previously were done by citizens. For example, there are machines that break up asphalt for road repaving. This used to take a crew of men. Now it takes one operator. Or, ditch diggers were needed for tunnels, now that is done by machine. Or, programmers were once office workers; India can now do programming, I thought.

Anyway, the good old days may just be gone, when a person with a high school diploma can get a decent job and live a life. Around 1900 most people just went to school through the 6th grade. That was increased to the 8th grade by around WWI. Starting high school was not mandatory throughout the 20th century. Perhaps, it's time to make community college mandatory for all. So, young people will enter the job market with some "skills" and perhaps a year as an "intern." The illegals may be proving the old maxim, "There are no more free lunches."

Check out Wyoming and N. Dakota and you will see that a lot of those states are not particularly habitable. Our water supplies are strained as it is, as are other resources. We need raw land for watershed, timber, agriculture, recreation, etc., and more urbanism is the last thing needed.

I really don't understand what education has to do with this discussion. BTW, more education may not be the panacea for anything. Grads are increasingly having a tough time getting good employment, as more advanced work is being outsourced. E.g., law firms are electronically outsourcing legal research to India, and hospitals are having xrays, etc., analyzed in that country.

I am surprised that brown neglected to mention the discrimination of dwarfs and retards, as somehow a reason to coddle illegals.

Well, I understand that there are many states in the Union that are not habitable for me, since I could not fit in with the people, not because of the land or climate.

On a more serious note, you might be correct, that even the jobs that require higher education may be leaving this country. So, you think having the jobs that are given to illegals represent a good career?

I think where we're talking at cross-purposes is because, I can't help but feel that, the position you are taking represents a somewhat common position, that those born in the U.S. have a sort of "birth-right" to a decent job for one's life work. That might go against the capitalistic system. And, if all the illegals are legalized tomorrow, yes, many Americans would feel like the proverbial older sibling when a newborn arrives from the hospital.

Not being an economist, I'm only surmising that with all the comparitively cheap labor around the world, and labor that is even able to do white collar brain work, we Americans with our historically high wages and very comfortable life style, may have priced ourselves out of many a job market, now and in the future. I can't think of any solutions, other than changing society to end the "rugged individualism" (that doesn't exist around the world either) whereby young people are expected to leave the proverbial nest and set up their own separate living quarters. We might just have to go back to multi-generational family living for many people in the future?

But, I don't blame the illegals, since capitalism always tries to maximize profits and minimize labor costs. At some point business interests will get the illegals legalized to some degree, I'd believe.

Compared to the assembly line jobs that went out of the country, blaming the illegals for the jobs they are taking, in my opinion, is just fighting over the proverbial crumbs.

We already allow more immigrants in legally than all the other countries combined. Maybe those other countries know something we don't. So, at the least, we should work harder to keep out illegals, and expel those already here.

Advocate, I just want to say I really like the quote in your signature.

Thank you! I like yours, too. Happy New Year!

Presidential Candidate Ratings On IMMIGRATION
How Well Would Each Candidate PROTECT Workers, Communities and Taxpayers FROM OVER-IMMIGRATION?
(SEE BELOW FOR HOW POINTS WERE ASSIGNED ON 36-POINT SCALE.)

EXCELLENT
34 points:


DUNCAN HUNTER

GOOD
28 points:

FRED THOMPSON
22 points:

MITT ROMNEY

Fair
20 points:

RON PAUL
18 points:

MIKE HUCKABEE

Poor
8 points:

RUDY GIULIANI

Bad
7 points:

CHRIS DODD

JOHN McCAIN
5 points:

JOE BIDEN

JOHN EDWARDS

DENNIS KUCINICH

BILL RICHARDSON
4 points:

HILLARY CLINTON

BARACK OBAMA

HOW POINTS WERE ASSESSED:

Points are based on candidate promises as of 2JAN08 on
(a) amnesty,
(b) stoppping future illegal immigration and
(c) reducing importation of foreign labor competition, plus
(d) rating of past immigration actions in political office.

Look at full ratings in 16 categories at Presidential Candidate Ratings website.

Points were assigned to the ratings for the first four overall categories: 0 points
for "abysmal" rating, 1 for "bad", 3 for "poor", 5 for "fair", 7 for "GOOD" and 9 for "EXCELLENT".

-- NUMBERSUSA.COM

Wow!

Those Republicans are something else.

((Why are all the Democrats at the bottom of the list?))

I guess they are entitled to be wrong on something. I think they are right on all else.

I think they are wrong on pretty much every issue.

I guess you are like the Rep candidates, who are all pretty supportive of Bush. This is despite his lying us into a war, running up huge deficits, torture, gaining the hatred of the world, ignoring healthcare and environmental problems, corruption, etc.

I think it is funny that McCain gets such a low score when he's really the only candidate to address the issue at all other than to pay lip service to "sealing the border." I also find it funny that "ammesty" is a parameter for scoring and I'm sure McCain got a low score even though the proposal he backed called for a whopper fine of over two months salary and required immigrants to leave the country to apply to come back.

The only way to get a good score on this poll is to essentially do nothing but talk about immigration.