What should be done about illegal immigration?

I doubt that it is a really good idea to reintroduce procedure from the times of slve trade.

But some of your kind, mysteryman, might certainly like your idea, too.

What is "my kind"??

I am just proposing a way for the pro illegal immigrant camp and the anti illegal immigrant camps could agree.
The pro illegals group wants the illegals to all get citizenship.
I proposed one.

Come up with a better one if you dont like mine.

You couldn't be more wrong about that.

The STRIVE act that is about to be debated in Congress is a good starting point for a politically viable solution that will be acceptable to me.

You mean this...
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_intrep.html

It seems like a good start,but it isnt enough.
If illegals truly want to become citizens,then telling them they must serve 4 years in the military would be a good way to prove it.

Basically, you two are telling low-income Americans to drop dead. I am sure you would feel differently were your jobs in jeopardy because of being outbid in some manner by illegals.

There are several big flaws in your argument.

1. If you care about low-income Americans, you will want to make sure that all workers in the United states have rights. A path to citizenship is the best way to make sure that workers who aren't citizens can't be exploited and that workers who are citizens don't have to compete with workers who have no rights.

Taking rights away from any section of the workforce is horrible for low-income workers. This is why a path to citizenship is supported by much of the labor movement.

Your knee-jerk reactionary politics is hurting American workers and non-American workers alike.

2. The idea that less workers automatically means better wages and conditions is over-simplistic to a ridiculous extent. Sure, this is part of the equation (as a second order effect). In reality there are many more factors such as the fact that when there are less workers, the economy shrinks meaning less jobs.

Of course, economics is just math, and kicking out 12 million members of our workforce (a proportion of whom are skilled workers) will have the same affect no matter which 12 million will remove.

I bet that if I decide to randomly remove 12 million people from the workforce (without singling out a group you happen to not like) you would not feel this was such a good thing.

3. If you really care about low-income workers... there are many things you can do rather than resort to xenophobia and scape-goating.

Fighting for Union protections. Getting Universal health care. Reforming the Credit industry. Raising the Minimum wage.

If you agree that the increasing divide between rich and poor is part of the problem... this is the fault of the rich holding all of the cards. Attacking the weakest, most vulnerable part of our economy seems illogical.

4. Try to understand what Union means.

The idea behind Unions is that if greedy or unscrupulous employers can divide employees, they can manipulate and exploit them. If the employees band together it levels the playing field and gives them a chance to stick up for their rights.

Dividing citizen versus non-citizen only helps greedy exploitative employers.


The solution that is best for all workers is to ensure that every worker in the US has rights which include changing jobs and legal recourse when they are mistreated.

A path to citizenship is the best way to make sure that workers aren't exploited or pitted against each other.

Browne wrote


A far better answer and a legal one at that, would be to take the illegals out of the equation assuring that citizens and legal immigrants will not have to compete with "exploited " workers." You know send them packing. You seem to forget that by granting these people legal status they now are not only are taking jobs Americans will not. {That is a crock} they will legally be competing for jobs with low skilled citizens.

I should also noted that by granting citizenship they will be able to petition for and bring moma and papa and all their siblings into this nation. Think of the explosion in costs for social services. IE. schools, medical facilities, housing, food stamps, medicare, medicaide and etc.

* Unfortunately, unions have been in decline for many years. Similarly, worker benefits have been in decline for many years. This will not be magically reversed at least for many, many, years.

* Browne likes to avoid the effect of amnesty, which is to encourage untold millions of additional people, from much of the world, to enter the country illegally.

* Browne effectively disrespects the low-income citizen worker, who is being increasingly pushed out of good jobs. For some reason, Browne is mostly concerned with the well being of the illegal immigrant.

Could it be that Browne is an illegal alien in disguise? Na only kidding :wink:

U.S. Targeting Immigrant 'Absconders'
Sharp Increase Is Seen In Deportation Evasion

By N.C. Aizenman and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 5, 2007; Page A01

At 2:10 a.m., a fleet of dark SUVs surged from the garage beneath a federal building onto the deserted streets of Fairfax County, carrying a raiding party of flak-jacketed immigration agents.

Their quarry: illegal immigrants who have ignored and evaded deportation orders. Called "fugitive aliens" or "alien absconders," they have nearly doubled in number since 2001, now totaling more than 636,000.





The Fairfax operation was part of a stepped-up national effort that has increased the number of fugitive arrests from 1,560 in 2003 to a projected 16,000 this year, U.S. immigration officials said.

As Congress ponders a sweeping overhaul of immigration laws, the hard mathematics of eliminating the backlog of cases has become central to the debate.

Conservatives say the White House has a credibility gap when it asks them to support a temporary worker program and a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants in return for a promised crackdown on the worst offenders.

The failure to remove "low-hanging fruit" such as fugitives "may reflect the fact that there's a complete neglect for enforcement, or that even in egregious cases, they just can't get their act together," said Steven A. Camarota, spokesman for the Center on Immigration Studies, a group that advocates less immigration.

Immigrant advocates and some former federal authorities counter that the growing backlog of fugitives -- who make up 5 percent of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants -- demonstrates the futility of relying on enforcement alone to stop illegal immigration.

"The absconder population is exhibit number one," said Victor X. Cerda, former chief of staff and general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). "We haven't been able to handle the 600,000-plus who went through the legal system. What's going to lead us to believe we're going to handle the 12 million?"

Federal officials became alarmed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks when they discovered they could not account for 314,000 immigrants who had been ordered deported, including 5,046 from countries where al-Qaeda was present.

Since then, spending on fugitive operations has grown from $9 million to $183 million a year -- about $10,000 per arrest, according to a recent report by the Homeland Security inspector general.

But the backlog continued to grow as immigration courts increased their workloads, issuing far more deportation orders.

Meanwhile, because of a shortage of detention space, many immigrants from nations other than Mexico who were caught sneaking across the border were freed in the United States to await their court dates -- a practice dubbed "catch and release." The vast majority never showed up for court, leading judges to order their deportation in absentia.



continued

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402369.html?referrer=email

There-in lies one of the many problems with our government's lack in enforcing laws they themselves create.

Which is also why you are such a big fan of the war on drugs.

And therein lies the inherent idiocy of our current policy. $10,000 per arrest? At that rate it should only cost about 120 to 200 BILLION just to tell them all to leave, let alone transport them. Can anyone figure out what's wrong with this picture? (Hint: We could provide food and clean water to everyone on earth for a fraction of that )

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4917114

Why are Mexicans "targeted" in particular, ebrownp asks somewhere.... Try reading why!

I never call anyone a bald-faced liar on A2K because that would be against the terms of the site, so I will refrain from doing so here.

There is an easy search feature near the top of your screen.

I defy you (or anyone else) to show me where I asked anything like this.

I'll check, ebrownp; it may not be on this thread, and you've posted enough to indicate a severe case of logorrhea, so it may take a while.

Mexicans should be "targetted" because we can't tell the difference between them and Muslims.

How can you argue against that?

Brilliant - you can't read the link OR even remember what was said a moment ago.

As an aside, did you change mothers? While looking up some of your old (and boring) posts, I saw you used to sign "Eric Brown-Muñoz". Not that I care particularly about your esteemed progenitors - just wondering....

There is a saying in my house...

"Sarcasm is lost on three year olds".

Let's hope some 3-year old in your house can explain arithmetic to you; elementary literacy clearly eludes you..... Slowly, therefore, and in reference to the above quote:
1,200,000
minus
165,000
equals = illegal Mexicans apprehended by the Border Patrol in the U.S. in that year!

Don't get stressed, Mr Brown-Munoz, I can see this calculation will require quite some time.... No rush.... Have a good month of May, too