Immigration - Discussing Non-Partisan Solutions

Great topic Dtom and will enjoy participating. I hope a nonpartisan spirit will prevail here. Have to keep my nose to the grindstone, run the rat race, tend to the salt mines, etc. this afternoon but living in a border state, this is one subject for which I would very much like to see a practical and viable solution found.

I will start by expressing my conviction that I am very much in favor of controlled and regulated legal immigration. For numerous reasons, I am not in favor of allowing or condoning illegal immigration.

More later.

0 Replies

Re: Immigration - Discussing Non-Partisan Solutions

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

the issue that i decided to go with first ( we can always do more later ) is immigration; i.e. legal, illegal, student visas, guest worker visas etc.

Foxfyre wrote:

I will start by expressing my conviction that I am very much in favor of controlled and regulated legal immigration. For numerous reasons, I am not in favor of allowing or condoning illegal immigration.

Well, how could be in favour of illegal things? :wink:

Recently I came personally in touch with US immigration authorities/agencies. I suppose, so, at least.

Because some here on A2K said, I had quite some knowledge in English, others, they couldn't understand me, and two, I should learn English before posting here, I decided to get examined.

Without any preparation (I really wanted to know the level of my actual knwledge, off the top of my head), I applied for the TOEFL ('Test of English as Foreign Language') here in Germany, in a German university.
Even though I noted on the formulas that I didn't want to study neither in the USA nor in Canada, I had to sign my accordance that all my personal data (and a copy of my photo) were send to "relevant" US agencies.

I truely can understand that acountry wants to know, who comes why and when and whereof and what she/he wants to do within its borders.

I think, however, the procedure I went through is just an easy collecting of personal data and capitalising on a monopoly (British exams aren't offered so often and not at many places: I marked that I wanted to study in the UK.

Okay, just a small anecdote, but one, which annoyed me a lot.

0 Replies

I have no idea what this policy was for Walter, but will make a guess that it is to keep administrative costs within budget. It is probably necessary to limit requests for the test to serious applicants for Visas, etc. Otherwise it could be used recreationally like one of those IQ tests that keeps popping up all over the internet.

You ask who would be in favor of illegal? In this country the states are required to provide medical care, education, welfare, social security, and workers compensation to illegals. Further if a pregnant woman can make it across the border at the morment of birth, her child is born a U.S. citizen and she is given full rights to stay here to raise him or her.

For a starting point, I advocate all such entitlements be afforded to U.S. citizens only including a Constitutional amendment that only children bron to U.S. citizens are afforded automatic citizenship. I think that would go a long way to discouraging indiscriminate illegal entry into this country.

0 Replies

From this year's State of the Union Adress, by President George Walker Bush:

"America's immigration system is also outdated -- unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country. We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border. It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists. (Applause.)"

Even Bush says it needs an overhaul.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have no idea what this policy was for Walter, but will make a guess that it is to keep administrative costs within budget. It is probably necessary to limit requests for the test to serious applicants for Visas, etc. Otherwise it could be used recreationally like one of those IQ tests that keeps popping up all over the internet.

Well, I paid $ 125 for it, it lasted 4 hours without break (plus 45 mins administrational stuff), and I had to drive there 1 3/4 hour, starting at 8 am. Wasn't that recreationwise at all.

0 Replies

fb, your profile says you are in Mexico City. Are you still there? Are you a Mexican citizen or an American living/working in Mexico? The reason I ask is I have some questions that you might be better able to answer from that side of the border.

0 Replies

Mexican born and raised, Foxyfire.

0 Replies

walter wrote

Quote:

Well, I paid $ 125 for it, it lasted 4 hours without break (plus 45 mins administrational stuff), and I had to drive there 1 3/4 hour, starting at 8 am. Wasn't that recreationwise at all.

Ewww, sounds painful. Then I don't know. Seems to me sometimes I have to give an awful lot of personal information just to register for a free on line newspaper or magazine too.

Anyhow, how did you do on the test?

Fb, thanks for responding. I will have some questions later but do have to keep an appointment now and want to be sure I have the facts straight in the questions I will ask.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Anyhow, how did you do on the test?

Exactly 600 points in the written test - that should be enough for even all major MBA schools (besides Harvard :wink: ) (generally, for being admitted universities demand a score of 500-600) and a 6.0 in the analytic writing (leaving 99% of all participants behind me - 4.0 is the "entrance score" for universities :wink: ).

[To be honest: I'm quite proud about this result, since I really went there totally unprepared.]

0 Replies

I think the immigration policies are certianly due for a complete review. Whether they should be overhauled from there or not would still be up in the air.

Some immigration policies and functions seem to work fairly well. Others have huge holes in them or work to the exact opposite effect they were intended for.

For permenant immigrats, the idea of rationing green cards to people based on their country of origin seems extremely outdated to me. Why not just put all the applicants into a lottery and let the chips fall where they may? (so to speak!)

There should be provisions for recurring verification of qualifications for those here on student visas. If they drop out of school then their visa should be revoked.

IMO, every country has the right to both control their own borders and know who is entering their country. If people want to come into the US there is a process. That process should be followed and enforced. Those here illegally should be deported or find a way to get within the legal process. Those who follow the process should all have an equeal opportunity for immigration. That's what any reforms should work towards.

0 Replies

I'll read, and re-evaluate.

Right now, the important things to me are:

Exerting effort to maintaining the openness of our borders to legal refugees, and people seeking the same things my ancestors sought. This is characteristic of this country--and one of the things I'm most proud of concerning the US. (Hey, could we watch another such thread about other countries? Canada, Mexico, Germany (if we have enough citizens. Twood be eye-opening...)

The conflicting concern: Understanding that we can't always open ourselves to everyone who wants to come here indefinitely. At some point, I think we'll have to say we have all we can say grace over. But, I don't think we're too close to that now.

I am completely against any and all services for illegal aliens. They should be deported. We can't continue to reward people who are breaking our country's laws. I welcome legal immigrants-- Why don't we set up registration tables in the frigging desert between Mexico and the US? We'll give out free water...

I (as it is now, unless someone has a better idea) want to hurt illegal immigration by enforcing VERY harsh penalties against businesses that hire and hide illegals. Penalties so severe that the business will fail, and the ones who knowingly hire and hide illegals will be on a first name basis with IRS auditors for the rest of their lives. It is these people, IMO, who are most to blame when these poor Mexicans to die in cargo holds and in the desert. I don't know the extent of possible culpability of the Mexican govt.

Looking forward to seeing if someone has a great idea--or a more compelling, or enlightening viewpoint. May change my mind.

0 Replies

fbaezer,

About time you came back up here for a visit amigo. We're saving the tequilla you brought last visit as bait. Fox lives just up the way. All the conservatives live on the East bank of the Rio, and the Liberals all on the West bank. We call'em wetbacks and want Immigration to check their passports before letting them wander around over here. Give 'em half a chance and they'll steal our jobs and smuggle all the good stuff over the river. Next thing you know they'll want to vote!

I suppose you're still writing political speeches and newspaper articles. Things are changing, it just takes time. Cuba Libere! Rum & Coke, what a wonderful mixture of Anglo and Hispanic tastes.

0 Replies

Before I forget to mention it, congratulations to Walter. I so admire those who are proficient in more than one language. I have enough trouble in the one I inherited.

And now for fblazer in particular, and for any others who care to contributute/comment, here is the problem and question as I see it exists at least in the mind of many Americans:

1. We have huge numbers of illegals in this country the majority of whom are Mexican and come across our very long shared border with Mexico. We do not have the manpower or resources at this time to defend all of that border.

2. Many of the illegals who are here are gainfully employed, law abiding, good neighbors, and are paying payroll taxes in the United States, however it is widely reported (I have not verified) that most are sending the bulk of their paychecks home to Mexico and thus are not significantly benefitting American commerce and industry.

There are three primary points of view about that:

a) Before there were illegals and significant welfare programs, Americans did take whatever work they could get including some 'undesirable' jobs that are now done by illegals.

b) Those who grumble that these illegals are taking good jobs at low wages from Americans who would get the jobs at higher wages if the illegals weren't here.

c) Those who are certain these people are taking jobs Americans wouldn't do for any amount of money.

3. A disproportionate number of illegals do not find work here and are either supported by the American welfare system and strain social services to near the breaking point or they turn to crime.

4. There is always concern that the porous border will allow in those who intend to do serious harm to the United States and we are not talking about Mexicans here but only that Mexico provides an easy access for them.

5. Following protests from the Mexican government when we have attempted to strengthen the rules and border security, it is fairly widely suggested that Vicente Fox is encouraging Mexico's poor and unemployed to emigrate illegally to the United States. (There are also those who say this is preposterous of course.)

Now realizing that there are always extenuating circumstances and multi-layered factors in such things:

QUESTION: What would Mexico think and what would Americans think if the U.S. built a major, unscalable wall along the entire border with cameras and sensors such as that dividing Israel from parts of Palestine?

QUESTION: How strained would our relationship with Mexico be if we do seriously clamp down on illegals in this country and make it extremely unpleasant and/or dangerous as a matter of policy for anyone attempting to be here illegally?

0 Replies

I'll try to answer little by little.

Foxfyre wrote:

1. We have huge numbers of illegals in this country the majority of whom are Mexican and come across our very long shared border with Mexico. We do not have the manpower or resources at this time to defend all of that border.

True.

Foxfyre wrote:

2. Many of the illegals who are here are gainfully employed, law abiding, good neighbors, and are paying payroll taxes in the United States, however it is widely reported (I have not verified) that most are sending the bulk of their paychecks home to Mexico and thus are not significantly benefitting American commerce and industry.

The bulk of Mexican inmigrants in the US and Canada, both legal and illegal, send part of their money back to their families in Mexico. An estimate of 13 billion dollars, for 2004. That makes about $1200 a year per inmigrant (not most of their money, as you can gather: this weakens the argument of "lack of effective demand". Anyway, it's still a substantial amount).

BOTH the Mexican and the US government are working on schemes that makes it less costly. Companies like Western Union, in the US, and Elektra, in Mexico make about 500 million dollars yearly profits on this.

To argue against inmigrants sending their money home is equivalent to the old left wing argument against American investiment in third world countries: those companies send a lot of their profits back to the US. "They're bloodsucking us!", they say. And they don't see how they create jobs, push demand, help to build infrastructure and the like.
This kind of nearsightedness has no ideology.

0 Replies

fbaezer, they are called "birds of passage".

sorry, didn't want to interrupt the flow.

0 Replies

OPERATION WETBACK. Operation Wetback was a repatriation project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service to remove illegal Mexican immigrants ("wetbacks") from the Southwest. During the first decades of the twentieth century, the majority of migrant workers who crossed the border illegally did not have adequate protection against exploitation by American farmers. As a result of the Good Neighbor Policy, Mexico and the United States began negotiating an accord to protect the rights of Mexican agricultural workers. Continuing discussions and modifications of the agreement were so successful that the Congress chose to formalize the "temporary" program into the Bracero program, authorized by Public Law 78. In the early 1940s, while the program was being viewed as a success in both countries, Mexico excluded Texas from the labor-exchange program on the grounds of widespread violation of contracts, discrimination against migrant workers, and such violations of their civil rights as perfunctory arrests for petty causes. Oblivious to the Mexican charges, some grower organizations in Texas continued to hire illegal Mexican workers and violate such mandates of PL 78 as the requirement to provide workers transportation costs from and to Mexico, fair and lawful wages, housing, and health services. World War II and the postwar period exacerbated the Mexican exodus to the United States, as the demand for cheap agricultural laborers increased. Graft and corruption on both sides of the border enriched many Mexican officials as well as unethical "coyote" freelancers in the United States who promised contracts in Texas for the unsuspecting Bracero. Studies conducted over a period of several years indicate that the Bracero program increased the number of illegal aliens in Texas and the rest of the country. Because of the low wages paid to legal, contracted braceros, many of them skipped out on their contracts either to return home or to work elsewhere for better wages as wetbacks.

Increasing grievances from various Mexican officials in the United States and Mexico prompted the Mexican government to rescind the bracero agreement and cease the export of Mexican workers. The United States Immigration Service, under pressure from various agricultural groups, retaliated against Mexico in 1951 by allowing thousands of illegals to cross the border, arresting them, and turning them over to the Texas Employment Commission, which delivered them to work for various grower groups in Texas and elsewhere. Over the long term, this action by the federal government, in violation of immigration laws and the agreement with Mexico, caused new problems for Texas. Between 1944 and 1954, "the decade of the wetback," the number of illegal aliens coming from Mexico increased by 6,000 percent. It is estimated that in 1954 before Operation Wetback got under way, more than a million workers had crossed the Rio Grande illegally.

0 Replies

fblazer writes

Quote:

The bulk of Mexican inmigrants in the US and Canada, both legal and illegal, send part of their money back to their families in Mexico. An estimate of 13 billion dollars, for 2004. That makes about $1200 a year per inmigrant (not most of their money, as you can gather: this weakens the argument of "lack of effective demand". Anyway, it's still a substantial amount).

BOTH the Mexican and the US government are working on schemes that makes it less costly. Companies like Western Union, in the US, and Elektra, in Mexico make about 500 million dollars yearly profits on this.

To argue against inmigrants sending their money home is equivalent to the old left wing argument against American investiment in third world countries: those companies send a lot of their profits back to the US. "They're bloodsucking us!", they say. And they don't see how they create jobs, push demand, help to build infrastructure and the like.
This kind of nearsightedness has no ideology.

Well if your figures are correct, and I have no reason to believe they are not, I would say that measured against the U.S. economy, $15 billion is pretty much chump change and therefore $ exported to Mexico are not significant enough to make an issue of it.

That leaves the other alleged and documented costs of illegals in the country such as strain on already overtaxed social services, increased U.S. unemployment, increased crime when there aren't enough jobs to go around, etc.

Back in themid-80's when I was between jobs, I took a temporary post with an ecumeniical Church group. A group of volunteers attached to this group were running an illegal underground "Sanctuary" project to smuggle illegals into this country. This was during a 10+ year policy that people coming up from most unsettled Central American and northern South American countries were deemed economic refugees rather than political/war refugess and therefore were not afforded refugee status. It is easy to be opposed to such illegal activities in principle; far more difficult to hold on to that principle when you're looking into the eyes of some of the refugees. Ditto for having the will to deny all other people in need who are on your doorstep whether they are legal or not.

But whether or not we have the will to act on the principle, the principle remains. Despite its great size, wealth, and generous spirit, the U.S. can assimilate only so many without harming the whole. So somewhere, there has to be a line drawn.

The Maquilladores project in Northern Mexico was once touted to offer full employment to the people. I guess that didn't work out.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There are three primary points of view about that:

a) Before there were illegals and significant welfare programs, Americans did take whatever work they could get including some 'undesirable' jobs that are now done by illegals.

Gotta buy that. But that was decades ago. The structure of both the economy and the social tissue in the USA has changed significantly.
And I don't think the American society is willing to give up significant welfare programs in exchange of a chance to get rid of the illegals.

Foxfyre wrote:

b) Those who grumble that these illegals are taking good jobs at low wages from Americans who would get the jobs at higher wages if the illegals weren't here.

c) Those who are certain these people are taking jobs Americans wouldn't do for any amount of money.

I think it's obvious that some jobs are taken at lower wages, and other jobs, perhaps the majority, would not be taken by a sufficient number of Americans anyway.
But let's focus at the "good jobs" (it would be better to read "not that bad jobs):
1. Two things are to be measured. Wage and productivity. From what I hear from American employers, the big problem is not wages, but the differential in productivity for the same, relatively low, wage. The inmigrant, who has yet to "make America", tends to put more effort and attention, while the American citizen looks at the job as a dead end, is often grumpy and is not moved to perform at his/her best.
2. Suppose, anyway, that a tighter control would significantly reduce undocumented migration and, thus, move real wages up. Even if productivity rises as wages do, which would not be highly probable, the cost effects would translate to prices, profits and future investments, if looked from the domestic side. They would translate also in lessened American competitiveness in the world commodities markets. The result in both cases would be less job creation. A vicious circle.*

*This is what happened in Europe in the early 70s. Full employment, and union empowerment, lead to an inflation pushed by wages, which lead a few years later to a strategy of labor control widely based on unemployment. European unemploment rates have been high ever since.

0 Replies

Your knowledge of how it works here in the U.S. is humbling Fb.

Two articles with widely separate perspectives, both citing a lot of
facts and figures but not providing a clear source for them:

Illegal immigrants are a primary reason for California's budget problems:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2003/cap_03-09-25.html
(This same criteria is likely to be similar in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona)

vs

Activists Challenge Immigrant Prison Proliferation
http://www.datacenter.org/programs/swarm-f01.htm

And here is one that looks pretty credible with a lot of
facts and figures amd supporting stronger deterrants to being here
illegally.
http://www.eriposte.com/civil_rights/non-citizens/illegalimmigration.htm

0 Replies

Immigration - Discussing Non-Partisan Solutions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know