What should be done about illegal immigration?

ebrown writes


You're absolutely right as the last time we did that (1986) the results were that we are facing a much more difficult to solve problem this time. And if we do the same thing again, we can pretty much bet the farm that a few years on down the road we'll have to face an even worse problem.

So my solution is find a way to a) accommodate those who need to be here while b) obeying the law.

One way I see to do this is to provide an easier way to immigrate either with green cards or on temporary work permits and ask everybody to go home voluntarily and come right back via those easier provisions. And those who are willing to do that get what they want, they are now here legally, and can get their name at the bottom of the list for naturalization if that is what they want. I'm sure you and other citizens who want them here permanently will contribute generously to whatever programs handle the transportation, etc. and numerous organizations no doubt will. Win win for everybody.

Those unwilling to utilize legal means provided for them are not the sort of folks we want to share a country with and should be rounded up and sent home.

There may be better solutions offered, but I haven't seen any others yet that do not reward people for illegal behavior.

My only point is that there is no win-win to be found.

We plan to win this one politically, by putting the blame on the House Republicans (and their supporters) who are refusing to pass any realistic bill.

Seeing that polls are saying that a compromise that includes earned citizenship is an acceptable solution (to 60% of Americans) and with pressure from moderate Republicans to pass this compromise... I am feeling comfortable.

But you are willing to try to kill a decent compromise that has passed the Senate and is supported by the president, in favor of doing nothing-- after the Bill your side passed in the House is being seen as far to harsh to be accepted and didn't even address the issue of immigrants here.

There is no win-win here. I am going to make sure that your side is held responsible for the fact that nothing is being done even when a majority of Americans say they support the solution I am advocating.

ebrown - what's all this "your side", "my side" nonsense?



The statement above was made by Barbara Boxer.

There are clearly two sides to the "earned legalization" debate.

When I talk about my side, I am refering to the large number of American citizens who feel strongly that providing an path to earned legalization and citizenship is the only solution that is just and compassionate.

When I talk about "your side" (actually I was referring to Foxfyre) I am talking about social conservatives with whom I am fighting on many issues.

This is an argument among American citizens about what values our country stands for.

I don't like Foxfyre's vision for my country. In my opinion, the positions she expresses (on this and other issues) are legalistic, judgmental and lack compassion.

In my vision, The United States is better than that. Respecting diversity and showing compassion reflect our values and make us a better nation.

Just out of curiosity, what is 'uncompassionate' about the win-win solution I suggested? (I am by far not the only one who shares it.)

And so, eBrown, you are saying there is no win-win solution and we shouldn't even try for one and just do it your way which is to roll over. let anybody do whatever they want, and don't interefere?

The question is whether people who have been here (illegally) for years and now have families, friends and community here are going to be forced (either through deportation or "attrition") to uproot their lives.

Letting them stay will save families, let students continue good education and contribute to the US society and keep kids who have grown up here from being sent to what is to them a foreign country.

This is the definition of compassion.

The solution you suggest involves "attrition" which is a strategy of making peoples lives here unbearable. This is hardly a win for people who care about the immigrants involved.

I didn't say you should try for the solution you are advocating. This is how politics works and you should try for whatever you believe in. Just don't call it a "win-win" situation when your solution means millions of people are screwed-- and millions of Americans care.

You are right you are not the only one who shares your opinion. You are wrong that you are a majority. But that's politics and this will be fought like any issue. Keep in mind that the majority of Americans say they would accept earned legalization.

I find your position immoral because it hurts people I care about. If you want to offer a true "win-win" solution... find a solution that doesn't offend millions of Americans.

Why should we care about being compassionate with lawbreakers?

Do you feel compassion for all the Americans, who were born here, yet can't get a job in certain areas of the country because illegal immigrants are doing them?

UImmigration into our country has a set of rules. If you follow the rules, like millions do, you earn the right of citizenship. If you don't follow the rules then too f'ing bad. Get the hell out and come back when you can follow the rules.

The country needs immigrants, we need people from every corner of the globe to come and experience America. We just need them to do it legally.

If they have come here illegally and they have family and friends, well, boo-f'ing-hoo. Don't let the barbed wire get tangled around your boots on the way out. if they cared so much for their families they would not jeopardize them by being here illegally.

And again I ask what is uncompassionate about the win-win solution I proposed? Ebrown does not seem to wish to consider it in any way but persists in putting words in my mouth that I never said and thoughts into my head that I have never thought. Perhaps some on the Left are incapable of real solutions and think demonizing others is actually an idea?

My idea would actually provide a way for anybody here illegally, save for the rapists, crooks, thugs, and drug dealers, to be here legally. I actually can't find a whole lot of problem with it. We can tighten the rules to ensure all who come can be successful, and loosen the rules to ensure that those who need to be here can be here.

Please explain, 'casue I am listening.

You will get points for feasibility....

Once upon a time in america there was an idea, a conservative idea at that. The idea was something in the direction of "market forces" which included "supply and demand". It might even be said to have been a Republican idea. But then, that's when Republicans had ideas rather than emotion driven hot buttons.

I don't exactly get the purpose of your plan...

For people with real ties here (either families, or kids who have grown up here) leaving would be absolutely foolish unless they were sure they were going to be coming right back. Otherwise you are talking about separating families and taking kids (who will be productive citizens if you let them) out of school.

But if you are being honest...

If this "touch base" plan provides a gaurantee that they will be allowed to come "right back" and put on a path to citizenship-- then I would consider this a compassionate plan.

But I don't get what the purpose is. How does making them "touch base" in there country help anyone? It still puts them on a path to citizenship (which I suspect many on your side would still consider "amnesty") and seems like an empty gesture. I think most social conservatives are using this as a way to kick most people out of the country and preventing them from ever reentering -- that would most definately be uncompassionate by any definition of the word.

But you are right... coupled with a path to earned citizenship I would consider this a "win" in that I would get the path to earned citizenship that I feel is critical to any compassionate solution.

If it would make your side happy... a path to earned legalization that included a ritualist base-touching exercise may be compromise.

I spelled it out pretty much in the post earlier today. For truly temporary workers--those brought in to work a season and then go home....I wouldn't see a whole lot of need for them to conform to other expectations other than being law abiding, but we would need a way to ensure that they did go home.

For those who wanted to come more permanently or who do want to become American citizens, then a job, learning English, demonstrating a reasonable knowledge of our history, laws, and traditions, and a pledge to be good guests and/or dedicated citizens should be a requisite for anybody coming into the country. I have no problem making it much easier for them to do that.

And I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible for them to go home and come right back on an improved program for admission of immigrants. Again, if cost is a problem, all you guys who are obviously so much more compassionate than those of us who advocate enforcing the law should have no problem helping out. I certainly know a couple of organizations that would be glad to help and I would be willing to contribute a bit even. Certainly employers who needed the workers should help foot the bill.

There is always a feasible solution to any problem and sometimes the best solution is also feasible.

I agree with you that we should make it possible for more productive and law abiding immigrants to be here.

I also agree with McG that such immigrants should be willing to be here legally from the beginning and not expect special consideration after they have already thumbed their noses at our laws.

So to me, meeting both requirements is the only way for there to be a win-win solution. My proposal I think might accomplish it.

Do I understand you right Foxfyre? Is this what you are talking about?

The Foxfyre-Brown plan

1. All border-security stuff that politicians say they want is implemented (i.e. extra boots on the ground, fence etc. etc), as well as the workplace enforcement provisions (i.e. SSN checking and the database) in both the House and Senate bills.

2. Immigrants who are here illegally register with DHS (or some applicable agency) and leave the US to return to their native country

3. Immigrants who meet the following criteria will be guaranteed re-entry and legal permanent residence if they meet the following criteria:
a. They have complied with registering as per #2 and returned to their country for at least one day.
b. They have commited no violent felony.
c. They have been in the US for at least 2 years.
d. They pay back taxes and a fine.

4. The immigrants who have been given legal permanent residency as per #3 will be able to become citizens provided they learn English and don't break the law for six years.

------

I would sign up for this. Would everyone else?

Let's all call our Representatives. Maybe there is hope for our divided country yet...

I think we're getting closer to agreeing on how this should be done, however.

This is the point of disagreement. Read my post again. For this to be a compassionate plan (as I define compassionate) people need a guarantee that they can re-enter the US with no delays.

That is the whole point (that I thought you were compromising on) and the reason I specify one day, and registering (which was my attempt to compromise to you).

If people are sent to their native country and are not given a guarantee that they can return to their American homes without delay... you are going to cause the disruptions of family life... and interruptions in the all important education of future US citizens that I am trying to avoid.

I am not going to be a part of a bait and switch plan where people are given hope... and then stranded indefinately from their homes and families.

I need the guarantee of a return without delay for those who qualify (i.e. no felonies). Otherwise there is no deal.

I think for many Americans then there will be no deal. I'm willing to relax the requirements and waiting time and give the folks time to arrange for a reentry plan - say 30 days to get out with no harrassment from the authorities. If their lives are temporarily disrupted, it is a small price to pay for thumbing their noses at U.S. laws. There should be no reason their employer can't bring them right back. Lawbreakers should have no guarantees other than assurance of equal treatment under the law.

Assuming a bait and switch plan is again just assuming don't you think? It certainly was not part of my proposal.

I am not worried about "many Americans". I am only worried about the House Republicans who are going to block the Senate compromise for the same reasons that you object to my plan.

But it is even worse than that. The House Republican leadership isn't even going to let the Senate plan get to the floor of the House for an up or down vote. If it was put to a fair vote in the House, the Senate bill would probably pass in the House with a simple majority. The Republican majority leader-- Hastert, has vowed to not even bring it up for a vote.

And it is even worse than that... the majority of Americans when polled say they want an immigration law passed this year and will accept the very earned citizenship provision in the Senate bill which is a key sticking point to conservative Republicans.

So you and I didn't get any further than our elected representatives have.

But it is the Republicans who are blocking an immigration reform bill desired and supported by a majority of Americans. It is the Republicans who are in control of the presidency and both houses of Congress and still can't get a compromise bill through.

Maybe with a Democrat-controlled House things will be different....

Even US citizens dont have this guarantee.
Why should illegal immigrants?

To eBrown: There is some truth to that, but most Senate Republicans I believe opposed the bill that passed and a large percentage of House Republicans oppose it as it is a liberal pro-amnesty bill. Still the House Bill doesn't go far enough to provide a remedy and policy for legal immigration, but there is something to say about lets start with enforcement and then work out how to proceed from there. Debating it is a problem because there is no way the matter will get a fair hearing or be portrayed accurately to the American public. And Bill Frist is not playing entirely fair by appointing only pro-amnesty Senate Republicans to the conference. The following sort of sums up the problem:

Senate Immigration Bill Is Skunk in a Bow
by James R. Edwards, Jr.
Posted Jun 01, 2006

The Republican House of Representatives should tell the U.S. Senate -- and the Bush White House -- to take a hike on immigration.

The GOP-led House has been handed a skunk wrapped in a bow. That stinking varmint, S. 2611, amounts to a liberal, Democrat bill.

Instead of obliging the cynical pansies of the Senate and the administration who keep pushing open-borders policies, the House should simply refuse to name conferees. That is, House Republicans should boldly snub their noses -- very publicly -- at their party's turncoats.

Otherwise, the GOP House faces a no-win situation in a conference committee charged with reconciling two immigration bills as different as night and day.

The best course for the House majority, if it hopes to retain Republican control this November, lies in shouting "No deal!" and slamming the door to bargaining behind closed doors. The House should stick to its guns and insist on its enforcement-only approach as the only thing worth discussing.

Enforcement is the true "rational middle ground" on which there's any agreement. But flacks for Big Business, Big Labor, Big Religion and the Far Left hold enforcement hostage. It's leverage to force acceptance of amnesty-guestworker schemes.

In the end, no immigration bill is better -- for the country, for conservatives and for the Republican Party -- than anything that could possibly emanate from a conference committee trying to marry up H.R. 4437 and S. 2611.

Why not attempt to hammer out a House-Senate compromise? For several reasons, but first consider some facts.

The Senate's Hagel-Specter-Martinez "compromise" amnesty bill is in fact a liberal product. While the vast majority of Democrats (38) voted for it, only about 40% of Senate Republicans (23) supported its passage.

Doesn't it tell us something when Teddy Kennedy enthusiastically supports this bill?

Nearly 60% of Senate Republicans (32) opposed S. 2611. Ten of the 14 GOP Senators who face re-election this year voted against the bill, and three of the four Democrats who cast "no" votes stand for re-election this time.

S. 2611 includes several amnesty measures. It legalizes some 85% of the 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens, even rewarding their lawbreaking with U.S. citizenship. It amnesties employers who broke the law by hiring illegal aliens. It contains a DREAM Act amnesty for illegal aliens under 18 years of age and a special amnesty for illegal farm workers.

The bill creates a new "guestworker" program in which the "guests" (some of whom are illegal aliens whose status it launders) will never leave the country. This is President Bush's "any willing worker" plan. It sets up a dynamic where no willing American could ever accept the artificially depressed wage rate being offered, so cheap foreign labor always gets the job.

Proponents unfailingly fail to mention that native-born American unemployment in the very job sectors with the most foreign workers (e.g., agriculture, restaurants, construction) is twice the national average. Millions more American workers have been forced from the labor market because they can no longer find employment in their fields.

When the average Mexican worker earns 1/12th the wage of the average American worker and 4.6 billion people in the world earn less than the average Mexican, that makes for a lot of "willing workers."

Further, S. 2611's enforcement provisions don't measure up to the House's. The immigration lawyers' lobby drafted much of S. 2611 (creating an "immigration lawyers' full employment act"). "Enforcement" sections actually tie the hands of law enforcement -- one provision even requiring the United States effectively to get Mexico's permission before building border barriers or taking enforcement actions.

So, what do these facts mean for House Republicans? They mean House Republicans will be outgunned in a conference committee. Everybody else -- House and Senate Democrats and Senate Republican conferees -- will gang up on the GOP House conferees. And the White House, while not formally part of the conference, will arm-twist for the open-borders, pro-amnesty side.

If Senate GOP conferees reflected the majority of Republican Senators, they would side with House majority conferees. But Sen. Bill Frist has already tipped his hand. He intends to name "Republican" conferees who mostly reflect Democrats' instead of his own party's views.

The very fact House Republicans are negotiating with the amnesty crowd will further depress the Republican base. The reputable polls all show the public overwhelmingly favors the House's enforcement-only approach and opposes amnesty-guestworker.

If they name conferees, it will appear House Republicans are selling out America. That will further depress turnout this fall by the voters the GOP desperately needs to show up on Election Day.

Midterm elections historically go poorly for the party that holds the White House -- and second-term midterms tend to be the harshest.

To keep the House in Republican hands, the key is for the House majority to hand back to President Bush and the Senate their amnesty-guestworker skunk.

Mr. Edwards, coauthor of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, is an adjunct fellow with the Hudson Institute.
SOURCE

You know Foxfyre, Republican does not equal "American".

It is a mistake to think so... and there is a good chance that the Republican monopoly on power (which doesn't represent the nation as a whole) will come to a dramatic end in the next couplr of years.

Don't forget that nearly half of the country voted for John Kerry in the last election and more than half of us voted for Al Gore before that.

The majority of Republicans doesn't matter to anyone except for you and Dennis Hastert. It is the majority of Americans that will prevail in the end.