What should be done about illegal immigration?

That effect is now being shown by the predominant number of Hispanics to vote democratic. We don't have to wait for them to become 18 year olds.

The bigots are fighting a battle that is already lost. The Status Quo is what they can't stand; yet they're pushing their hardest to maintain it. 12 to 20 million (maybe more) people will continue as they are now, at worst, or they'll be granted something better. The bigoted wet dream of mass deportation will NEVER, EVER, happen. Further more; unless they come up with a solution to let a great deal more people come in legally (not 200,000 annually); the problem will persist. They've been making ladders for as long as they've been making walls.

I hope they don't. When they turn 18 we should thrown them all in adult jail after we deport their parents. Why? For aiding and abetting, of course.

Ya know Bill, when you start playing the race card, it makes you look pretty small minded. I think you're better than that.

I really think these two comments need to be viewed right next to each other for the full effect.





The irony is just, too much, honestly

Cycloptichorn

There's no irony, what's ironic is that you can't see that, yet you claim to be so smart.

Cyclo, Not surprising at all; most racial bigots can't see beyond their bigotry even though they reveal themselves often.

I think considerably less of you. Though all racists are bigots; one need not be racist to be a bigot. You just happen to be both. You peddle your hatred of Mexicans on this thread while peddling your hatred of Blacks on the other thread, and actually seem proud of it. Of course; you do so from safely behind a fake name and phony avatar like the stereotypical cowardly bully. I sense more intelligence in some of your posts, and that only serves to make your demeanor more offensive. You should know better.

I never peddled hatred of anyone (with the exception of militant Islam). Nice of you to make that up to support your unsupportable position.

Any idea of amnesty is not going to fly with the American public. Most Americans live their lives in a law abiding fashion. They have no leniency for those that don't.

The pro-IA people here have no valid arguments, so they feel compelled to use epithets on their opponents. Bill is about the worst I have seen.

This is a pity because it forecloses any intellectual discussion of the matter.

Who has anything against Iowa?

Are we any closer to an agreement?

Bush accelerates border security funds


By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
40 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush called for $4.4 billion in accelerated funding for "securing our borders and enforcing our laws at the work site" Thursday, as his administration and key senators struggled to revive controversial immigration legislation.

"We're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept," Bush said, two days after launching a personal rescue mission.

The measure's most controversial feature envisions eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million immigrants now in the country unlawfully. At the same time, it calls for greater border security and a crackdown on the hiring of illegal employees.

Bush made his remarks a few blocks from the Capitol, where the bill's supporters said they were closing in on a tentative agreement that could clear the way for the measure's revival within two weeks.

Under the plan, Republicans and Democrats would each be accorded several chances to amend the measure, with the understanding that they would then combine to provide the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster by die-hard opponents.

I think not.

Senators vow to revive immigration bill

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
29 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Senate leaders vowed Thursday night to revive stalled immigration legislation as soon as next week, capping a furious rescue attempt led by President Bush.

The decision, announced by Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada and his Republican counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of Kentucky, envisions a final vote on the complex bill before lawmakers begin their Fourth of July vacation

Immigration Reform's Ugly Side
The New Republic Magazine


We support the immigration bill now before Congress because, as we have previously argued, this compromise is the best that liberals are likely to get. Putting off immigration reform any longer more or less ensures that nativism will grow, making it likely that future proposals will be far more draconian. Moreover, by creating a path to citizenship for twelve million undocumented workers, the bill would accomplish an important task: integrating into American life those who have lived on the margins of society for far too long.

But our endorsement comes with a caveat, for, while the bill exemplifies some of the best instincts in American democracy, it also indulges one of the worst. Our country has always been a land of immigrants, but we also have a less celebrated tradition of importing non-Europeans to do the difficult tasks that our own citizens shun--harvesting cotton, building railroads, picking grapes. These immigrants were not welcomed as citizens. Instead, they became part of a shadowy underclass that belied the unique promise of American life. The guest-worker program envisioned by the immigration bill--which would allow hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers into the United States annually--falls squarely within this unsavory tradition: the tradition of the African slave ship, the Chinese coolie, and the Mexican bracero.

To be sure, the guest-worker proposal addresses a genuine need. The United States does suffer from a shortage of low-level service workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that 22 of the 30 occupations likely to experience the largest job growth through 2014 will require only on-the-job training. These jobs include landscaper, janitor, and home health aide--exactly the types of positions many Latino immigrants now take. And one could argue that a guest-worker program would merely legalize the long-standing practice of Mexican laborers crossing the border to find work, then returning home with their savings.

But, if many migrants have historically gone home, many others have decided to stay, choosing to work their way up the occupational and educational ladder--an opportunity the guest-worker program would not provide. Under the bill, guest workers would be able to stay only two years at a time, after which they would have to return home for a year. (Altogether, they would be allowed to come here for three two-year stints, with a year in their home countries between each.) Yes, the bill provides that they be paid prevailing wages. But the likely result will still be a docile workforce, fearful of being fired, with no allegiance to the United States.

And after their stay has expired? That's where the real folly of this proposal comes to light. Some of these workers will return home to be replaced by a new batch of recruits. But, invariably, many will stay in the United States illegally--replenishing the class of undocumented workers the bill is designed to eliminate. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 45 percent of the nation's undocumented workers didn't get into the country by climbing through barbed wire but rather by overstaying their visas. Which is exactly what will happen with guest workers. A decade from now, thanks to a burgeoning population of guest workers who have avoided going home, we will find ourselves having this debate all over again and hearing yet more nativist cries for deportation. This is hardly the result sponsors of the immigration bill have in mind. And it's not an outcome Americans should accept.

The guest worker program can work only if the government enforces their own laws; that's not about to happen if past experience is any indication of future enforcement on the "lesser demanding" aspects of the law.

"So hey babe, you've got no papers of your own eh? Wanna go for a ride with me later?"

Advocate has it exactly wrong.

Immigrants have always been good for the country... when they have been given rights and a pathway to citizenship. (And in his last post, Advocate is taking a position against legal immigration, not illegal immigration-- so let's not get confused).

It is people who are in a vulnerable position that can be exploited that drive down wages. The problem with guest workers is that they are temporary. This means they don't have rights and are at the mercy of their employers.

This is why labor is completely unified on this issue -- anyone who comes to the United States legally to work should be given full rights and a path to citizenship. We are united on this position-- even though we disagree about what to do about people here illegally now.

What you are fighting for Advocate is bad for the American workers since you are not just importing workers-- you are importing easily exploitable workers.

((I thought you all have "no problem with" legal immigration anyway...))

There are aspects about legal immigration that I deplore. Don't you?

For instance, I think would-be legal immigrants should be screened to determine that they will be assets to our country. This is not being done. Also, once legally admitted, the immigrant can bring in up to about 65 relatives, many of whom will be a drag on our society. For instance, many bring in elderly parents and other relatives who, after five years, go into nursing homes with their lifetime stays fully funded by taxpayers through Medicaid. The cost of this is astounding. Many more improvements are needed.

Advocate, I see your problem. Legal immigrants by its very contributions to our society are "assets" to our country. There is no need to "screen" them to see if they will become assets; that's putting the wagon before the horse. Most new immigrants from Europe and Asia to the US from the very beginning contributed by working in labor intensive industries. After some generations in this country, their children and grandchildren were able to take advantage of the opportunities afforded them, and many did. Immigrants are necessary to grow our work force that helps our economy grow. Isolation does just the opposite; Japan has a problem with their aging population; not enough workers to support those in retirement. Although they are still the second largest economy in the world, most of their growth is outside of Japan.