IMMIGRATION RED-HOT CAMPAIGN ISSUE

Obama speaking on Immigration

This is the candidate I am supporting for president.

Who are you supporting, Advocate?

I guess that's what happens when you are trying to make a point over applause.

Obama and Hill are not perfect on everything, and are definitely wrong on illegal immigration. It is a little incongruous for Obama to say we are a nation of law and immigration in the context of a discussion of illegal immigration. BTW, McCain more or less tracks their thinking on this issue.

While O and H are both fine presidential material, I favor Hill, who seems to have fleshed out better programs. Also, she comes with Bill, the master politician and leader. In any event, H and O would make a potent and excellent team in the general election.

Advocate
Immigration problem can be solved.
Economic downfall can be stoppted.
If- only if- Ombama respects the views of others to stop this barbaric banal war.

Neither Obama nor his counterpart are decent enough to uphold the whims and Dreams of the non-Americans.

I don't think either party is going to do anything but wave their hands about illegal immigration. Do you know why? Because in a really Machiavellian sense, the system we have now is nearly perfect from the US side. First, there is a sufficient barrier to ensure that only the really motivated come across the border. Only the cream of the crop come across. Second, since they are illegal, if they break a US law, they can be deported after serving time. Hence we only keep the best of the best here. I really doubt those in Washington want to upset this system, either by restricting immigration or making it easier to come. Call me cynical, but this is just a issue to get the bigot vote out in November.

It is dubious that they are even the physical cream of the crop. They are certainly not mentally the cream of the crop. I don't think that the flood of illegals is good for the country, and this has been covered in this and other threads ad nauseum.

McCain shifts gears on immigration. He has more gears than an Abrams tank.


McCain's Latin Dance
Republicans Seek to Sway Hispanic Vote
By MIRIAM JORDAN
February 9, 2008; Page A6

Republican presidential front-runner John McCain could help swing back to his party a crucial constituency considered lost to Democrats amid a rancorous immigration debate: the Hispanic vote. But Mr. McCain will have to tread carefully as he intensifies a push to win over his party's right-wing base.


The Arizona senator's "McCain-Kennedy" bill, which was defeated last year, would have put 12 million illegal immigrants on the path to legal status. On the campaign trail, Hispanic voters have heard the presidential candidate declare illegal immigrants "are God's children, as well." He called for "love and compassion" when lambasted on illegal immigration at town-hall meetings.

Such views have provided a possible opportunity for the Republican Party to win back Hispanic voters. Hispanics constitute the fastest-growing demographic group in the U.S. The Latino vote could be decisive in large, Hispanic-heavy states like California and Texas, as well as states where Latinos are a fast-growing minority, such as Pennsylvania and Colorado.

Since the 2004 election, when President Bush garnered solid Latino support, the Republican Party has become less attractive to Hispanics. Mr. McCain could be the exception: In exit polls from the recent Florida primary, Cuban-Americans and other Hispanics favored Mr. McCain 54% to 14% over Mitt Romney.

But Mr. McCain may face an obstacle in courting Hispanics. Having been blasted by Republican opponents and prominent conservative radio-talk-show hosts for sponsoring the immigration bill, Mr. McCain recently began to emphasize border security over an immigration overhaul. He may yet shift gears now that Mr. Romney, who with Mike Huckabee had shared the blessing of Republican conservatives, has pulled out of the race.

"Changing rhetoric on immigration to attract conservative voters...could come back to hurt him in a general election with Latinos," says Matt Barreto, a political-science professor at the University of Washington. "They will be asking, 'Who is the real John McCain?' It's a typical dilemma for candidates."

In an address to the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday, Mr. McCain made border security a clear priority. "I accept that and have I have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first...and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration," he said.

In a radio spot that aired in California ahead of "Super Tuesday," Mr. McCain also took a tough stance. "I've listened and learned. ... No one will be rewarded for illegal behavior. They'll go to the back of the line, pay fines and learn English. ... We'll punish employers that hire illegal immigrants," he said.


Mr. McCain will be walking a tightrope as he tries to court the right wing of his party, members of which have mistrusted him for years, while not alienating Hispanics.

"He is trying to have it both ways on immigration -- for comprehensive reform in the eyes of Hispanics and against it with the party faithful," says Dan Restrepo, a director at the Center for American Progress, which describes itself as a progressive think tank.

Until he adjusted his immigration message recently, Mr. McCain's views were in stark contrast to those of his Republican rivals. Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, played to Republican hard-liners by voicing fierce opposition to amnesty for those in the country illegally and committing to cut funding for so-called sanctuary cities, which don't enforce immigration law as a matter of policy. Mr. Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, has campaigned alongside Jim Gilchrist, who founded a volunteer border patrol called the Minuteman Project.

Many Hispanics already feel stung by the strident tone of the immigration debate in Congress and support for punitive measures by high-profile Republicans like Colorado's Tom Tancredo and Wisconsin's James Sensenbrenner. "There is a feeling, even among Latinos here for generations, that Hispanics aren't welcome," says Mr. Sosa.

Mr. McCain could effectively swipe Latino votes from whichever Democrat wins the nomination. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois have supported comprehensive immigration overhauls that would create a guest-worker program and provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But each candidate has weaknesses.

Mrs. Clinton could lose ground if Mr. McCain seizes on her changing stances over a proposal by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer last year to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. She ended up opposed to the idea, a decision that was criticized by immigrant-rights groups such as the New York Immigration Coalition, which had lobbied for the licenses.

Mr. McCain could also provide a Republican alternative to Hispanics who may be resistant to supporting an African-American candidate like Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama lost the Hispanic vote on Super Tuesday to Mrs. Clinton in states where Hispanics are expected to be a key vote come November, including California, Illinois, New York and New Mexico.

In the past, voter turnout among Hispanics has been lower than for African-Americans and whites. This year, however, they are expected to vote in record numbers, more than nine million, compared with six million in 2004, according to the National Association for Latino Elected Officials. In addition to the immigration issue, a national registration drive and get-out-the-vote campaign by Spanish-language media and grass-roots Hispanic groups have energized the constituency.

Write to Miriam Jordan at [email protected]

It is amazing how the anti-"illegal"-immigration stance has been such a political loser. Obama (with the strongest compassionate immigration stance) is flying high... and Clinton is pretty much following suit.

The right wing anti-"illegal"-immigrant hate McCain who is seen as "soft" on illegal people. Yet one by one those who relied on tough immigration stances from Tancredo to Romney have all flopped.

McCain is in a tough spot and progressives are relishing the opportunity to play this wedge issue for all its worth (it is not often that wedge issues favor progressives).

At every step of the campaign, we will ask "Senator McCain, here is an undocumented Mom who has been here 12 years with American citizen kids... will your solution to the immigration debate result in her becoming an American citizen?"

McCain has to choose between the racist wing of the Republican party (who wants nothing less than deportation) and the moderates who include the ever more important Hispanic vote and the majority of the America public.

The Democrats have a fine, consistent to this answer that will speak to their base and appeal to most of the moderate middle.

McCain is going to piss off part of his base no matter what he does.

Ironically it turns out that it will be the Republicans who will be trying to avoid the subject which now favors the Democrats.

It is just that immigration is not THE overriding issue. The principal issue is Iraq, with the economy and terrorism close behind. Further, a majority has concluded that the Reps have to go, which would facilitate CHANGE.

This is for those who are not PC.


A Mexican, an Arab, and a redneck girl are in the same bar.




When the Mexican finishes his beer, he throws his glass in the air,pulls out his pistol, and shoots the glass to pieces.He says, 'In Mexico, our glasses are so cheap we don't need to drink with the same one twice.'




The Arab,obviously impressed by this, drinks his beer,throws it into the air, pulls out his AK-47, and shoots the glass to pieces. He says, 'In the Arab World, we have so much sand to make glasses that we don't need to drink with the same one twice either.'




The redneck girl,cool as a cucumber, picks up her beer, downs it in one gulp, throws the glass into the air,whips out her 45, and shoots the Mexican and the Arab. Catching her glass, setting it on the bar, and calling for a refill, she says,




'In America we have so many illegal Mexicans and Arabs that we don't have to drink with the same ones twice.'

funny.

The problem is that so many are illegals who jump ahead of those playing by the rules, take jobs from citizens, drive down wages of those most in need, stress the environment, cause discord, include drug dealers and other criminals, etc.
-Advocate

I don't mean to sound trite or come off as being flippant, but how, exactly, can one take a job from another? It seems to me that while a job can be given, it cannot be taken--or stolen. In my opinion, it's more intellectually honest to say that citizens are beaten-out for jobs or lose-out to a more desirable competitor.

Now, you mention that "illegals" drive down wages--I wont ask you to cite a study to support your opinion, but I do want to question that on its own merits. Presumably, you mean to say that an increase in unskilled laborers (made up of illegal aliens)--all other things being equal--has the tendency drive down wages in unskilled labor, which I tend to agree. But that same argument was made when women started to enter the workforce en mass back in the middle of 20th century, and yet, in general, the salaries of men didn't plummet. That would seem to suggest that the pie grew with the addition of more laborers into the job-market--that both male and female workers were absorbed fine and that society in general benefited.

In any case, do you think that possibility--or even probability--of lower wages alone should cause us to prevent the introduction of more workers into a given industry? For example, if we were to train more doctors and more doctors were to enter the medical industry that would--all other things being equal--have the tendency to lower or depress wages for doctors. Conversely, having more doctors would also have the tendency to lower the cost of seeking professional medical help. While the introduction of more doctors would harm those doctors already in the industry, it would seem the the consumer in general would be better off-- because of the drop in price for professional medical assistance. Would you agree that the same could be said for unskilled labor? Anyway, do you agree that, in order to maintain the current wages paid to doctors who are in currently in the industry, we as a society should keep the same number/ratio of licensed physicians to patients? If not, why then should lower or depressed wages be a reason to keep out illegal aliens from the job-market?

Moving on, you mention that illegal aliens cause discord, stress the environment and are drug dealers. Now, I'm not at all familiar with your views, but I doubt that you are suggesting that all illegal aliens cause discord, or that all illegal aliens are drug dealers, or that illegal aliens stress the environment anymore than citizens or legal aliens. Now, let's say that we were to apply your reasoning (discord, environmental stress, and drug dealing) for restricting "illegals" from immigrating to the U.S. In other words, let's apply your rational to interstate immigration instead of international immigration. If it was found that some Texan immigrants immigrating to California were criminals prone to causing discord, would you argue that all immigration from Texas to California should be halted? What about if we discovered that Texas interstate immigrants stressed California's environment--should Californians then be allowed to stop Texans at the California border?

Moreover, most of the illegals are not the type of immigrants that we should be getting.
--Advocate

How do you know this to be true or accurate? I mean, I'm guessing most demographists would agree that there are "push/pull" factors involved in mass immigration. Surely, you'd agree that someone or some entity wants these "types" of immigrants, right? So, what causes you to say, or on what basis do you argue that immigrants you're talking about are the wrong type?

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion, and I hope you answer my questions and ask a few in return.

Hi Mexica, please make an effort to avoid being so literal. Intelligent people speak in generalities, not parsing every word for its literal meaning. Yes, illegals don't take jobs at gun point. However, they edge out citizen workers by, for example, often working for less, off the books, without complaints on working conditions, etc. Thus, employers who are greedy, or who are merely competing with other employers who use illegals, exclude citizen workers.

I think your analogies about women and doctors are invalid inasmuch they are citizens and, thus, legal competitors.

Concerning the quality of illegals, I think you would admit that we are not getting the cream of the crop. You are probably aware that other countries generally have strict rules concerning special skills, wealth, etc., that an immigrant must have.

Hi, Advocate.
Thanks for responding.
I can promise you that I'll make an effort to respond to your arguments later today.

Hi Mexica, please make an effort to avoid being so literal. Intelligent people speak in generalities, not parsing every word for its literal meaning.
-Advocate

True. I'd agree that intelligent people--as well as dolts--sometimes employ generalities. However, I do tend to think an intelligent person would not confuse generalizations with metaphoric or informal/colloquial speech. In any case, I just wanted to make the point that much of rhetoric surrounding this debate is false and misleading. And it seems that you agree. At least you admit that illegal immigrants "don't take jobs" from U.S. citizens. But please, know that I am thankful for, and welcome your observations on the actions of intelligent people.


Yes, illegals don't take jobs at gun point. However, they edge out citizen workers by, for example, often working for less, off the books, without complaints on working conditions, etc. Thus, employers who are greedy, or who are merely competing with other employers who use illegals, exclude citizen workers.
--Advocate

I doubt any more truer words have ever been typed: "illegals don't take jobs at gun point." Again, we agree. But, I do take issue with your use of the word "greedy."

It seems that you're attaching a sinister motive to employers who are seeking workers who will work for the lowest wages. But what's sinister about wanting to get the most bang for your buck? Are consumers who shop for the cheapest auto-mechanic "greedy," because they want to get a their car repaired for the least amount of payment? Are shoppers who wait for "after Christmas sales" to buy goods, greedy because they want to get certain items for the lowest possible price? It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that auto-mechanic and after Christmas shoppers are greedy because they want to pay less for a good or service. Likewise, it seems just as silly to suggest that an employer is greedy because he/she shops for the employee who will work cheapest.

I think your analogies about women and doctors are invalid inasmuch they are citizens and, thus, legal competitors.
-Advocate

Well, I was countering some of the "problems" you listed with illegal immigrants. Now, you did list the illegal means by with they compete, and I purposely refrained from arguing that--there is no debate there; they are here illegally. However, you mentioned certain effects you believe to be happening as a result of illegal immigration.

You said that illegal immigrants:

1.) drive down wages of those most in need.
2.) stress the environment.
3.) cause discord.

I argue that the allowing more immigrants will 1.) in general, benefit society and the economy, 2.) that illegal immigrants don't cause any more stress to the environment than legal immigrants or native citizens, 3.) that the discord that some illegal immigrants cause is no more a reason to stop international immigration, than it would be to stop interstate immigration because some interstate immigrants cause discord.

Again, please note that I am offering a counter to some of your "problems" with illegal immigration. I am not saying that illegal immigrants are entitled to compete with native born or naturalized citizens, or legal immigrants. If anything, I am making a case that we should allow more legal immigrants to enter the job-market.

Concerning the quality of illegals, I think you would admit that we are not getting the cream of the crop.
-Advocate

No, I wouldn't agree to that at all. I mean, maybe the best auto-mechanics, nannies, and gardeners are staying behind in Mexico (and other "Latin" American countries), but the ones here seem to be good enough--there seems to be a high enough demand for their services. And I think those voting with their wallets (consumers of services provided by illegal immigrants) would disagree with you on that.


You are probably aware that other countries generally have strict rules concerning special skills, wealth, etc., that an immigrant must have.
-Advocate

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that.
But what's your point?

Thanks for responding.

October 17, 2007, 12:59 pm
The Case for Open Immigration: A Q&A With Philippe Legrain
By Melissa Lafsky

A British economist and journalist, Philippe Legrain has served as special adviser to the director-general of the World Trade Organization and worked as the trade and economics correspondent for the Economist. For his latest book, Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them, he spent over six months interviewing immigrants across the globe and researching immigration policies in wealthy countries. (Click here for an earlier immigrant's tale on this blog; and here to see what Fred Thompson had to say on the subject.) The book was just nominated for the Financial Times/Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award. Legrain kindly agreed to answer our questions.



Q: You argue that immigration is a good thing, under almost any circumstances. Why? Are there any circumstances in which it isn't good?

A:The economic case for open borders is as compelling as the moral oneQ: What are the hidden costs of current immigration restrictions?

A:Q: What are the biggest barriers to enacting open immigration policies in rich countries like the U.S., the U.K., and Australia?

A:Study after study has failed to find evidence that immigrants harm American workers. Harvard's George Borjas claims otherwise, but his partial approach is flawed because it neglects the broader similarities between immigrant labor, native labor and capital. A recent NBER study by Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri found that the influx of foreign workers between 1990 and 2004 raised the average wage of U.S.-born workers by 2 percent. Nine in ten American workers gained; only one in ten, (all high school dropouts), lost slightly, by 1 percent.

Another fear among citizens of wealthy countries is that their nations act as "welfare magnets" for poorer migrants. True, if people from poor countries are better off on welfare in the U.S. than they are working in Mexico, this could conceivably motivate them to migrate. But immigrants would still be even better off working in the U.S. than living on welfare. As such, immigrants would have to be enterprising enough to uproot themselves to start a new life in a foreign land, but then suddenly become sapped of enterprise once they arrive in the U.S. This outcome is highly improbable -- and there is no evidence, as even Borjas concedes, that the U.S. actually does act as a welfare magnet.


Read the rest here

Mexica,
Would you be OK with the US having the same laws, and enforcing those laws, concerning illegal immigrants that Mexico has?

I wouldn't mind having the same immigration laws as Ireland.

((we all got a silly little email with this idea about what .... 5 years ago. You anti-immigrant folks need some new material.)))

mysteryman, I'm not all that familiar with Mexico's laws concerning illegal immigration.
But it's doubtful that I'd support the US adopting immigration laws similar to those of Mexico.