Usually. hokiebird, I try very hard to source my "facts" with sources from established news agencies. Forgive me if I am a bit slack here. It is my bedtime.
One version of the bill would allow 400,000 "guest" workers to come into to work on farms. Another version limits that to 200,000. These people, regardless of the number, are critically needed at harvest time. Would they be replacing American workers? Are they getting paid and treated decently? If the crops are not picked, will the farms eventually be converted to subdivisions and we will get our food from elsewhere? Is that good? Will these 200,000-400,000 folks go home after the harvest? Whose responsible for ensuring that they are legitimate "guest" workers?
And that is just one portion of this Senate bill.
amended to 200,000 today/yesterday in the Senate
Cycloptichorn
realjohnboy wrote:Usually. hokiebird, I try very hard to source my "facts" with sources from established news agencies. Forgive me if I am a bit slack here. It is my bedtime.
One version of the bill would allow 400,000 "guest" workers to come into to work on farms. Another version limits that to 200,000. These people, regardless of the number, are critically needed at harvest time.
Yes - against the wishes of the Administration, the number was slashed to 200,000 (proposal made by a Democrat - Bingaman, I think his name is).
Diane Feinstein assures us that this won't be a problem for farmers.
Quote:Would they be replacing American workers?
Another Democrat (Dorgan, I think I read) says yes and also stated he would vote no on the bill unless the entire "guest worker" program was scrapped.
Quote:Are they getting paid and treated decently? If the crops are not picked, will the farms eventually be converted to subdivisions and we will get our food from elsewhere? Is that good?
These are ideological questions not addressed in the bill specifically, although I suppose we could find all kinds of opinions and commentary from both sides easily.
Quote:Will these 200,000-400,000 folks go home after the harvest?
Yes. They will be issued temporary visas to stay in the country for a period of 2 years and then will have to go home for one year. This can be repeated three times, according to the bill in its current form.
Quote:Whose responsible for ensuring that they are legitimate "guest" workers?
And that is just one portion of this Senate bill.
DHS with assistance from the FBI. (This is one of the 'triggers', in that the 'electronic verification system' has to be up and running before anything else is done and Michael Chertoff estimates that will be approximately 18 months or so). Two of the other triggers are building the fence and additional border patrol agents - with about the same time frame.
It's late here, too, but if you need 'sources', I've been doing a lot of reading (CNN and other news agencies as well as the bill itself) today and can probably round them up.
May 25, 2007
Immigration Bill Provisions Gain Wide Support in Poll
By JULIA PRESTON and MARJORIE CONNELLY
As opponents from the right and left challenge an immigration bill before Congress, there is broad support among Americans ?- Democrats, Republicans and independents alike ?- for the major provisions in the legislation, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demands, the poll found.
At the same time, Americans have mixed feelings about whether the recent wave of immigration has been beneficial to the country, the survey found, and they are sharply divided over how open the United States should be to future immigrants.
Half of Americans say they are ready to transform the process for selecting new immigrants as proposed in the bill, giving priority to job skills and education levels over family ties to the United States, which have been the foundation of the immigration system for four decades.
Point by point, large majorities expressed support for measures in the legislation that has been under debate since Monday in the Senate.
The nationwide telephone poll did not ask respondents about the immigration bill itself, but there were questions about its most significant provisions. It was conducted May 18 to 23 with 1,125 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
The bill, which is backed by President Bush and a bipartisan group of senators, would allow illegal immigrants who were in the United States before Jan. 1 of this year to obtain legal status by paying fines and passing background checks.
Two-thirds of those polled said illegal immigrants who had a good employment history and no criminal record should gain legal status as the bill proposes, which is by paying at least $5,000 in fines and fees and receiving a renewable four-year visa.
Many Republican lawmakers have rejected this plan, calling it amnesty that rewards immigrants who broke the law when they entered the United States. But the poll showed that differences are not great between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, with 66 percent of Republicans in the poll favoring the legalization proposal, as well as 72 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of independents.
Rick Nuñez, a 29-year-old quality control technician from Pennsauken, N. J., who identified himself as a Republican, said in a follow-up telephone call that he favored a legalization plan.
"Illegal immigrants are imbedded in our nation, so allowing them to apply for a work visa would be a good way to draw them in and set a path for them to become legal," said Mr. Nuñez, whose family came from Puerto Rico. "If they have been working here and are law abiding and can contribute to our country, they should be allowed to stay and become citizens."
Most of those polled agreed that illegal immigrants should eventually be allowed to apply to become American citizens. But 59 percent said illegal immigrants should be considered for citizenship only after legal immigrants who have played by the rules.
Under the Senate bill, illegal immigrants would have to wait eight years before they could become permanent residents and at least 13 years to become citizens.
Two-thirds of Americans in the survey favored creating a guest-worker program for future immigrants. The bill would create a temporary-worker program in which immigrants would come for three stints of two years each, going home for one year between each stint and returning home for good after the third.
More than half of those who favored the guest-worker program said the workers should be allowed to apply to become permanent immigrants and eventually American citizens, if they maintain a strong work history and commit no crimes. About a third of those who favored the program disagreed, saying guest workers should be required to return home after their temporary period.
The bill does not include a path to citizenship for guest workers. In the debate, Democrat senators have sharply criticized the temporary-worker plan, saying it would create an underclass of easily exploited low-skilled workers. On Wednesday, senators voted to cut back the number of guest workers to 200,000 from the 400,000 proposed in the bill.
The bill also calls for reinforcing the country's borders, cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and eliminating the backlog of visa applications from aspiring legal immigrants. In the poll, 75 percent of those who responded favored tougher penalties for employers of illegal workers, and 82 percent said the federal government should do more to reinforce the border. But only 15 percent favored fences as the main method to reduce illegal border crossings.
The poll showed that Americans are uncertain about the benefits of the most recent wave of immigration, and divided over how many immigrants should come in the future. Fifty-seven percent said recent immigrants had made a contribution to the United States. But 35 percent said that in the long run, the new immigrants would make American society worse, while only 28 percent said they would make it better.
A plurality of 48 percent favored imposing some controls on immigration. But large minorities on either side disagreed, with a quarter of respondents saying the United States should open its borders to all immigrants, and a quarter saying that the borders should be completely closed. These polarized positions may help explain the acrimony of the immigration debate across the nation.
By large margins, people in the poll are aware that the majority of the immigrants who have arrived in recent years are illegal, and 61 percent said that illegal immigration was a very serious problem. A large majority, 70 percent of respondents, said they believed that illegal immigrants weaken the American economy because they use public services but do not pay corresponding taxes.
"This has nothing to do with any particular person or group of people, but housing and schooling are going to illegal immigrants," said Barbara Jackson, 55, a visiting nurse from the Bronx who identified herself as a Democrat. "You build affordable housing and then put someone in it who hasn't paid their dues. Do Americans' tax dollars pay for us to be second?"
Economists have found that many undocumented workers have Social Security and other taxes deducted from their paychecks, and have contributed as much as $7 billion to the Social Security Administration while claiming no benefits because of their illegal status. But Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group, has reported that low-skilled illegal immigrant families cause an overall fiscal drain.
Among those polled, a majority of 51 percent favored overhauling the American immigration system to make it more attuned to economic demands, giving priority to job skills and educational accomplishment. Only 34 percent said that immigrants with family ties in the United States should take precedence.
Family reunification has been the cornerstone of the immigration system since 1965. The bill proposes to move to a merit system in which points would be assigned for work skills and education.
"I think this country would benefit from having people relocate here who have an educational background that would be an asset to the country," said Delores Mitchell, 66, a retired social worker from Highland Hills, Ohio, who identified herself as an independent.
"I just don't feel it should be based on whether family is here or not. We need people who have more job skills," Ms. Mitchell said in a follow-up interview to the poll.
Most Americans in the poll said they believed the country will be served if immigrants can work legally. "When immigrants do take jobs, they're hard workers," said Anna Cooper, 55, a homemaker in Venice, Fla., who identified herself as an independent. "They just want to work, that's the bottom line. They need a paycheck to take care of their families."
Megan Thee, Marina Stefan and Dalia Sussman contributed reporting.
Discuss the amnesty bill. What bill. If one ever is enacted it will have only a slight resemblance to the one now on the table. AS for polls each one comes out with a different results.. Could it be because each one frames the questions differently. THe last one I read about, did not see actual results showed that Americans first and foremost want our borders sealed and do not want the path to citizenship option included. The reason being we should not reward those who break our laws.
HokieBird wrote:realjohnboy wrote:Usually. hokiebird, I try very hard to source my "facts" with sources from established news agencies. Forgive me if I am a bit slack here. It is my bedtime.
One version of the bill would allow 400,000 "guest" workers to come into to work on farms. Another version limits that to 200,000. These people, regardless of the number, are critically needed at harvest time.
Yes - against the wishes of the Administration, the number was slashed to 200,000 (proposal made by a Democrat - Bingaman, I think his name is).
Diane Feinstein assures us that this won't be a problem for farmers.
Those that don't want any guest workers are of course those who are in the pockets of the labor unions.
Otherwise, why establish a quota for 'guest' workers? We either need the labor or we don't. Why not allow American employers to bring in whatever workers they need in whatever quantities are needed? If the employers are obligated to ensure that the workers return home when the job is over and they certainly should be obligated to ensure that guest workers have access to adequate housing, medical care, and other necessities as well as minimum wage, it is a given that American workers will get first shot at those jobs if they want them.
Quote:Quote:Would they be replacing American workers?
Another Democrat (Dorgan, I think I read) says yes and also stated he would vote no on the bill unless the entire "guest worker" program was scrapped.
If an employer is obligated to pay minimum wage and provide decent working conditions, housing, etc. to guest workers, and is obligated to hire an American in lieu of a guest worker if the American wants the job, then no, the guest workers will not be taking jobs from Americans.
Quote:Quote:Are they getting paid and treated decently? If the crops are not picked, will the farms eventually be converted to subdivisions and we will get our food from elsewhere? Is that good?
These are ideological questions not addressed in the bill specifically, although I suppose we could find all kinds of opinions and commentary from both sides easily.
As previously stated, no guest workers program should allow any employer to exploit foreign workers. If the workers accept minimum wage or any higher wage offered, and are provided humane working conditions, then that's up to the worker whether s/he wants the job or not. That is one of themany problems I see with the plethora of illegals in the country now. Because they are in no position to complain, employers can exploit them unmercifully and, while the workers may choose and accept that--they shouldn't--that DOES come at a cost to American workers, depresses wages, and is a discentive to other employers to provide decent working conditions for American workers or foreign workers.
There was absolutely no justification for slavery when it was legal in America, but the truth is that some slave owners did treat their slaves humanely and with compassion. After emancipation, or in states that had already abolished slavery, in order to survive, many black people and/or former slaves were forced to work in factories etc. under conditions that should have been felonious. I would guess in some of these cases that the quality of life for some slaves was worse as freemen than as slaves.
Nobody with a conscience would condone going back to slavery in any form. But neither should we allow American employers to treat people even worse than that.
Quote:Quote:Will these 200,000-400,000 folks go home after the harvest?
Yes. They will be issued temporary visas to stay in the country for a period of 2 years and then will have to go home for one year. This can be repeated three times, according to the bill in its current form.
I'm still mulling over how I think the requirements for returning home should look. Right now I am of the opinion that the guest workers should go home when there is no more work and it should be the responsibility of the employer to see that this happens. An employer who wanted to keep the workers on until the next job would be required to pay them while they were waiting.
Quote:Quote:Whose responsible for ensuring that they are legitimate "guest" workers?
And that is just one portion of this Senate bill.
DHS with assistance from the FBI. (This is one of the 'triggers', in that the 'electronic verification system' has to be up and running before anything else is done and Michael Chertoff estimates that will be approximately 18 months or so). Two of the other triggers are building the fence and additional border patrol agents - with about the same time frame.
Electronic identification yes. Strict enforcement yes. The fence? I still don't like the idea of the fence. With a comprehensive guest worker program in place and making it nonproductive for workers to come under anything other than a legal system, I think the only ones still sneaking in will be the crooks, criminals, and worse. And I think the fence won't be a huge deterrant to those. A comprehensive guest worker program would make it a whole lot easier to identify, catch, deport and/or prosecute the bad guys though.
Anything that Congress accomplishes about this should not be done in haste and without thinking through all the ramifications this time and without working out as many bugs as possible before a system is signed into law. For the life of me, why should it take 18 months to produce and implement an electronic ID system? It isn't as if we don't know how to do that already. If Congress would just specifiy what they want done and turn it over to private enterprise to do, it would be a done deal in no time. (Example: the privately run DMV centers here in Albuquerque are about 10 times more efficient than the government run ones.)
One the system is up and running, the government should see that the provisions are enforced and shouldn't have to do a whole lot more than that.
You're a riot Foxy. The employer should guarantee housing and that they go home? Sure, why not? Hope you like eating at chain restaurants with a fence... or like the idea of NOTHING CHANGING without one.
As an afterthought to my previous post, I see no reason that a 'path to citizenship' should even be a part of any guest worker program. I think these should be entirely separate issues.
Guest workers should be people that American employers need to do a specific job. And as previously explained, I don't see why any particular quota should be necessary for this.
The guest workers of course should be able to apply for citizenship but should do so on the basis as anybody else in the world applies for U.S. citizenship and should be considered in the same way and by the same criteria as anybody else in the world who applies for U.S. citizenship. I do think the system needs a complete overhaul and much streamlining, and I do think given the millions of illegals who are now working in the USA, that we can safely increase the quotas considerably. But citizenship should have a quota that ensures that those moving in permanently will have jobs or otherwise be self supporting and can be accommodated by the infrastructure and the culture, gifts, and abilities they bring can be seamlessly assimilated into and enhance the American culture as all legal immigrants do.
Foxfyre wrote:I'm still mulling over how I think the requirements for returning home should look. Right now I am of the opinion that the guest workers should go home when there is no more work and it should be the responsibility of the employer to see that this happens. An employer who wanted to keep the workers on until the next job would be required to pay them while they were waiting.
As far as I remember, Foxfyre, it isn't always impossible for an employer (now) to control if s.o.'s papers are correct and legal.
But why, do you think, can an employer hold responsible that an his employe is leaving the country? And how can an employer mannage that?
It should be the employers' responsibility to advise the government that the job is completed along with the names and ID numbers of the workers and make sure that the workers have a means to get home. Then if the workers don't go, they are on the record as being here illegally and can be rounded up and deported. It isn't that difficult a concept.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I'm still mulling over how I think the requirements for returning home should look. Right now I am of the opinion that the guest workers should go home when there is no more work and it should be the responsibility of the employer to see that this happens. An employer who wanted to keep the workers on until the next job would be required to pay them while they were waiting.
As far as I remember, Foxfyre, it isn't always impossible for an employer (now) to control if s.o.'s papers are correct and legal.
But why, do you think, can an employer hold responsible that an his employe is leaving the country? And how can an employer mannage that?
Simple Walter. You transfer them directly from their cage, and drive them home yourself at gun point.
OCCOM BILL wrote: You're a riot Foxy. The employer should guarantee housing and that they go home? Sure, why not? Hope you like eating at chain restaurants with a fence... or like the idea of NOTHING CHANGING without one.
Okay explain your objection. American employers would not be allowed to require American workers to be out on the job with no shelter, no water, no port-a-pottys etc. Why should they do any less for guest workers they bring in on a temporary basis? I don't think they have to PROVIDE the housing as much as ensure that it is available and that the workers have the ability to obtain it which means they will probably have to pay more than minimum wage in many cases or provide barracks or other reasonable housing for their workers.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I'm still mulling over how I think the requirements for returning home should look. Right now I am of the opinion that the guest workers should go home when there is no more work and it should be the responsibility of the employer to see that this happens. An employer who wanted to keep the workers on until the next job would be required to pay them while they were waiting.
As far as I remember, Foxfyre, it isn't always impossible for an employer (now) to control if s.o.'s papers are correct and legal.
But why, do you think, can an employer hold responsible that an his employe is leaving the country? And how can an employer mannage that?
Simple Walter. You transfer them directly from their cage, and drive them home yourself at gun point.
Your true colors are coming through Bill. Why didn't I think of that? And why did you?
Foxfyre wrote:As an afterthought to my previous post, I see no reason that a 'path to citizenship' should even be a part of any guest worker program. I think these should be entirely separate issues.
Guest workers should be people that American employers need to do a specific job. And as previously explained, I don't see why any particular quota should be necessary for this.
The guest workers of course should be able to apply for citizenship but should do so on the basis as anybody else in the world applies for U.S. citizenship and should be considered in the same way and by the same criteria as anybody else in the world who applies for U.S. citizenship. I do think the system needs a complete overhaul and much streamlining, and I do think given the millions of illegals who are now working in the USA, that we can safely increase the quotas considerably. But citizenship should have a quota that ensures that those moving in permanently will have jobs or otherwise be self supporting and can be accommodated by the infrastructure and the culture, gifts, and abilities they bring can be seamlessly assimilated into and enhance the American culture as all legal immigrants do.
So, if I'm looking for a cook, or a dishwasher, I hire one directly from Mexico? What if he can't cook? Or keep up?
And if that poor schmuck doesn't like the way I treat him; he can take his a$$ home or learn to like it?
Foxfyre wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote: You're a riot Foxy. The employer should guarantee housing and that they go home? Sure, why not? Hope you like eating at chain restaurants with a fence... or like the idea of NOTHING CHANGING without one.
Okay explain your objection. American employers would not be allowed to require American workers to be out on the job with no shelter, no water, no port-a-pottys etc. Why should they do any less for guest workers they bring in on a temporary basis? I don't think they have to PROVIDE the housing as much as ensure that it is available and that the workers have the ability to obtain it which means they will probably have to pay more than minimum wage in many cases or provide barracks or other reasonable housing for their workers.
Do you think I should pay housing for a dishwasher? Transportation? Get serious.
Occom Bill
Quote:Simple Walter. You transfer them directly from their cage, and drive them home yourself at gun point
A little drastic but you finally are on the right track :wink:
OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxfyre wrote:As an afterthought to my previous post, I see no reason that a 'path to citizenship' should even be a part of any guest worker program. I think these should be entirely separate issues.
Guest workers should be people that American employers need to do a specific job. And as previously explained, I don't see why any particular quota should be necessary for this.
The guest workers of course should be able to apply for citizenship but should do so on the basis as anybody else in the world applies for U.S. citizenship and should be considered in the same way and by the same criteria as anybody else in the world who applies for U.S. citizenship. I do think the system needs a complete overhaul and much streamlining, and I do think given the millions of illegals who are now working in the USA, that we can safely increase the quotas considerably. But citizenship should have a quota that ensures that those moving in permanently will have jobs or otherwise be self supporting and can be accommodated by the infrastructure and the culture, gifts, and abilities they bring can be seamlessly assimilated into and enhance the American culture as all legal immigrants do.
So, if I'm looking for a cook, or a dishwasher, I hire one directly from Mexico? What if he can't cook? Or keep up?
And if that poor schmuck doesn't like the way I treat him; he can take his a$$ home or learn to like it?
Are you even reading what I'm saying here at all? Do you not see that the post you quoted is on a completely different subject?
And what you're saying here isn't making sense. Why would you bring in a guest worker as a cook who can't cook? And why should you be obligated to keep anybody, guest worker or American employee, who isn't doing the job? Of course if the guest worker isn't doing the job, you fire him and send him home just as you would an American worker.
Surely you aren't suggesting that employers should be able to exploit and mistreat guest workers? Please tell me you aren't saying that Bill. I thought you were the compassionate one.
OCCOM BILL wrote:Do you think I should pay housing for a dishwasher? Transportation? Get serious.
We had guest workers in the 60's and early 70's.
Yes, housing, transportation, removal costs etc were paid by the employers - otherwise not many would have come.
And, of course, they were paid according to tariffs. Officially, at least.
(That is, in they got the same wage as a German had got doing that job.)
OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxfyre wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote: You're a riot Foxy. The employer should guarantee housing and that they go home? Sure, why not? Hope you like eating at chain restaurants with a fence... or like the idea of NOTHING CHANGING without one.
Okay explain your objection. American employers would not be allowed to require American workers to be out on the job with no shelter, no water, no port-a-pottys etc. Why should they do any less for guest workers they bring in on a temporary basis? I don't think they have to PROVIDE the housing as much as ensure that it is available and that the workers have the ability to obtain it which means they will probably have to pay more than minimum wage in many cases or provide barracks or other reasonable housing for their workers.
Do you think I should pay housing for a dishwasher? Transportation? Get serious.
Yes. If you bring somebody in from another country to be a dishwasher, it should be your obligation to be sure that this person has a living wage meaning that s/he can afford food, shelter, and necessary health care or you provide these yourself. Otherwise, you better look for some poor American schmuck to do the job.
Fox, you don't know if a man can cook, until you
A. Taste his cooking.
B. See how he performs under pressure.
A resume is about as useful as his mother's word.
Who pays transportation from Mexico? If it's me; that's a crazy price to pay for a guy who may or may not be able to cook. If it's him; that's a hell of a price to pay for a job your may or may not keep a week. You obviously haven't thought this through.
As for providing bunkhouse quarters and denying citizenship, ever; I can ill imagine a step closer to slavery than that.
