Cool. Welcome to you, Leon. (I think the only realisitic explanation of Armando's time excesses is that he travels at the speed of light when posting. So he's probably ageing really well, too. What else?)
Welcome, Leon, thanks for taking the time and good luck at Vanderbilt!
I'm a graduate of the "school of hard knocks" myself, and I always look forward to gaining insights through other's experiences and backgrounds here at SC.
Can't wait for a rousing debate on your favorite subject. Glad to see you lend your voice to the fray. It should add some depth and color to the clinking of the swords.
Welcome, Leon... I promise that if I ever feel compelled to disparage your mother, I'll disparage George W. Bush's mother instead... you have my word... at times I'll even disparage George W. Bush's mother when I don't feel compelled to disparage yours... cheers...
2 Branches can constrain 1. They got a warrant from a judge so I see nothing wrong with this. No branch is above the law, which is why I expect this will quickly turn into a discussion of the President's claim of being above laws such as FISA.
Wow, that's the first time I've seen Harry Reid make sense. What a bunch of blowhards is the rest of the crew over there... I am ashamed of their public outcry.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think it is important to separate the crime, Jeffersons, from the FBI raid on a Congressional office. To me it is yet another step in the direction of greater executive power.
We all know Yoo and Addington are dizzy with the thought of a unitary executive and broader Presidential powers. Starting with America's first pre-emptive war, an unprecedented number of signing statements, over riding the FISA courts, and now the first ever FBI raid on a Congressional office.
Step back and view it in perspective Leon. It is cause for concern.
While the public outcry seems a bit stinky, I think it is warrented and offers and opportunity for democrats who have been questioning executive overreach to actually do something since the Republicans are up in arms about this. In spite of the cover my ass don't investigate me feeling of this, I think checking this President's sense of unbridled authority is a brillaint idea. I am all for it.
I agree with Leon and Ender on this one. Out of all the things I fault this Congress for having done or not done the last five years, that they pick this issue to stake a claim as a coequal branch is laughable were it not so tragically corrupt.
A simple protocol in matters like this would avoid any perception of Executive branch overreach.
I also think Pelosi got it right and Jefferson should resign his committee assignment, and the CBC should support that instead of crying racism.
The problem is, as I understand it, Jefferson was served a subpoena for the documents last summer, and has yet to respond to it. The reporting on this is a bit vague, so I may be misunderstanding, but given those circumstances, isn't a raid of a Congressional office completely justified?
If you're worried about executive overreach, fine, but this seems to be a bad time to bring it up. It's almost certainly going to have a net negative effect on your side.
I tend to agree that there has been some overreach on the part of all three branches in recent years, but in this case it seems to me that the judicial and executive are acting prudently,and the legislative is overreaching. And again, I'll change my opinion completely if my understanding of the subpoena circumstances are wrong.
However, this isn't a unitary executive action. Bush didn't unilaterally demand the invasion of Jefferson's office. This was not like the NSA domestic spying scandal, in which he deliberately circumvented the courts. In fact, there appears to be no overt actions by the White House at all. This was a by-the-book FBI investigation.
If the WH backs down on this, then we are truly seeing the end of checks and balances in the classic sense - one in which two of the three branches can rein in the third - and the beginning of a rather ridiculous seperation of powers, in which every branch just acts on its own irregardless of the others. Activist judges, unitary executives, and police-immune Congressmen. That's the recipe for anarchy.
That old saying, no problem with the patriot act, I am safe, from that. No problem with NSA spying. I am safe from that. But then they came for me, and suddenly they realized that they, the Republican rubber stamp, bobble head, (only say yes to the President), then they came after them. Oh well, that's different. At least there is someone left, Dennis Haster, and his merry band of yes-sayers, who are in a majority and finally willing to shake their heads sideways for once. No Mr. President this time you have gone too far.
I tend to be in agreement, here, and I think that the Dermocratic Caucus has chosen precisely the wrong issue upon which to stand.
Congress is not above the law. If the FBI had probable cause, and a warrant, they had the legal authority to search the environs identified in the warrant. Period. If there was no warrant, or they used an NSL, then all bets are off.
Unfortunately the guest worker program and guest to citizneship program will probably fail because republicans are failures at governing.
'86 immigration rules still debated
By Gillian Flaccus
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - Luis Orozco was among the first in line nearly 20 years ago when federal lawmakers offered U.S. citizenship to nearly three million illegal immigrants. Today, he has a wife, two daughters and a car - but is still not a citizen.
For a surprising number of immigrants, the 1986 citizenship program has caused lingering problems. Hundreds of thousands whose applications were rejected sued the government and are only now seeing their visas processed. Thousands more sponsored relatives who still await legal residency.
What's more, immigration attorneys attribute much of today's immigration crisis to the last overhaul of citizenship rules, which they say encouraged fraud, increased unlawful border crossings, and set up employer sanctions that have never been enforced.
Those problems provide cautionary tales as Congress considers whether to grant citizenship eligibility to many, or any, of the nation's millions of illegal immigrants.
Orozco, who finally got a temporary residency card three months ago, said: "I hope the new people who apply have patience. I applied right away, and look how long it took."
Some immigration experts warn that the Senate bill, which proposes a path to "earned citizenship," contains the same conditions that invited a flood of lawsuits by excluding hundreds of thousands of applicants.
For Orozco, now 40, who crossed illegally from Mexico as a teenager, the 1986 amnesty seemed a chance to stop living in the shadows.
But an immigration official said he did not qualify because he left the United States briefly to visit his ill father. By Orozco's account, the official said that violated a key provision of the amnesty: that applicants could not leave the United States for one year beginning May 5, 1987.
As similar accounts mounted, attorneys filed more than a half-dozen class-action suits against the government.
According to the lawsuits, immigration officials told thousands of immigrants that they did not qualify because they briefly left the country, had violated tourist or student visas without notifying the government, or were legal for a brief period between 1982 and 1987.
Many immigrants received rulings that suspended deportation orders while the class-action cases moved through court. That allowed them to obtain work permits and driver's licenses. Others, such as Orozco, continued to live illegally.
In 2004, Orozco successfully applied for late amnesty under a settlement of one of the largest class-action cases, Catholic Social Services v. Ridge. The lead lawyer in that case fears that the Senate provision would repeat past mistakes.
The bill would make only one-fourth of 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States eligible for citizenship, said Peter Schey, a lawyer who has represented about 350,000 immigrants in amnesty lawsuits. In 1986, about half the six million illegal immigrants qualified without problems.
The Senate bill, which also includes border-security measures and a new guest-worker program, still must be reconciled with a House bill focused only on border enforcement.
Schey points to language requiring that an amnesty seeker have been in the United States illegally on one day - April 5, 2006 - to qualify for eventual citizenship. That, Schey said, would exclude thousands of illegal immigrants who briefly had legal status but lost it or violated the terms of their visas.
Schey said another provision that requires U.S. residence for five years to start on the citizenship path would exclude eight million or nine million immigrants.
Demetrios Papademetriou, a former Labor Department administrator who was involved in the 1986 amnesty, said a similar five-year residency provision then spawned many of the lawsuits - and plenty of fraud.
Papademetriou, now president of the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, said: "If you're going to swallow hard and go with a legalization program, then you might as well try to create incentives for virtually all of the people here."
Well, that was more or less the entire point - if you can't assure that, going forward, the people entering your country will be subject to its jurisdiction, any program that places limits or conditions upon their remaining here is a farce.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
If you don't allow for more immigration, people will still try to cross the boarder - fence or no. And unless you plan on tossing the half-million boarder hopers in jail for extended periods of time or use some other equally harsh deteriant, they'll continue to come.
If you don't enforce the boarder at all, people won't feel the need to negotiate the beaurocracy at all and will hop out of expediency.
However, I think it's somewhat of a fallacy to give one more importance than the other. Enforcing boarder security first without reforming immigration practices will only fatten the wallets of smart and successful coyotes. Creating an elaborate immigration policy with no enforcement mechanism first will not encourage anyone to depart the status quo of illegally immigrating. These policies have to be implimented at the same time to show we're both serious about boarders AND responsive to an increased demand for immigration.
And here we come to the crux of this bizarre problem. If this were any other issue, we would never have come to this juncture. Ever since the New Deal and before, Congress has consistently delegated more and more of its power and policy-making apparatus to the executive branch. Whatever your Constitutional view of this, there are sound pragmatic reasons why this was an inevitable development: specialization and expertise being the most commonly advanced among them. For myself, I think there are good political reasons behind this shift as well - Congress, with incumbency rates that typically hover around 90%, is democratically accountable in only a very vague way. The President, in addition to being term limited, has only had an incumbency rate of around 50% in the modern era (exactly 50% in the last 30 years). The only seat in the country which has to be continually and vigorously defended in a legitimate way is the Presidency, and more and more, actual policy shifts seem to come either from the Executive branch, or not at all.
A consistent feature of the post-New Deal landscape has been an executive all too happy to exercise whatever power Congress wants to delegate - and then some that it doesn't. For some bizarre reason, when it comes to immigration, administrations both Democrat and Republican refuse to exercise both legitimate statutory authority and statutory mandates. I wrote earlier that McCain-Kennedy was a good bill because it gave the Executive Branch more than enough authority to adequately secure the border. The twist to this political equation is that the President does not want to use the authority, and seemingly will not exercise it unless he is specifically required to do so.
Congress for a long time has been ducking responsibility for policy decisions by passing the buck to Executives, letting the President win or lose his elections on the strength of implementing vague statutory mandates which the Congress can run away from if the ultimate implementation runs afoul of public opinion. Generally, the surest way to get the President to do more is to specify less. In this particular equation, successive administrations have destroyed the faith of the American people that any President can be counted on to do anything he isn't expressly commanded to do.
That is the calculus when it comes to immigration.
P.S. I'm not interested in Lou's opinion on much of anything.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I don't know if I agree with you yet Leon, but immediately I like you. That at least makes sense, although I don't know exatly how it relates to policy or solving immigration.
Leon, I notice that you did not mention enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants. IMO if there is any real desire to reduce the number of people crossing our borders illegally, this needs to be one of the primary building blocks. Personally, I question whether either bill would be effective. What is to prevent any bill from being just another unfunded mandate. As eraske has stated in his post, our government has not honored the bill passed in 1986, President Bush promised 2000 additional border guards and funded 200 and the INS is years behind in processing its existing work load. I find it hard to believe that any thing will really change and am prone to this is just pre-election posturing.
What also needs to be pointed out is that CAFTA and NAFTA have both been part of the problem of immigration. Comprehensive immigration reform must start with insuring that corporations are following the law because paying undocumented workers illegal wages that skirt labor laws bring the standard of living down for all and trade agreements that keep nations impoverished cause the flood of illegal immigrants to America. These unfair trade agreements also impact the american workers twice by allowing competion in the global market to skirt labor laws and treat their citizens poorly for pennies while not following the same labor and environmental regulations that these companies would face in America.
The explosion of undocumented workers in America is a direct result of CAFTA and NAFTA.
Alot of American jobs get shipped over the boarder because wags are lower overseas. Then those overseas countries end up sending us large numbers of immigrants who want to be paid more.
Perhaps part of the problem is letting American companies profiteer in foreign nations.
Here's a thought: expand minimum wage laws to include employees of all businesses that do their business in the US. If you're a textile company and you want to sell shirts in America, you have to pay your employees (or contract with companies that pay their employees) the fair minimum wage alotted to American citizens.
If you want to do business in our country, I don't see why you should be allowed to skirt our labor laws by hopping the boarder. The American economy is attractive enough to keep businesses selling here. And I suspect you'd see sweatshops dry up as the practice loses it's economic viability.
honestly, the point is to realize we have a world economy.
insofar as we have a cooperative world economy with many stabilizer CONTROLLING the stability of the planet, we even have a -de facto- world government.
Border are porous, there is no rigid border. Trying to create a rigid border is doomed to failure and a sign of insanity, I think, though I don't mean to be harsh, consider that mere rhetoric, I'm not calling you insane, but the policy, yes.
I do agree with the notion that to have a porous border, then, requires the ability to regulate the border, but I would need a specific plan to believe that we need anything more than current laws enforced.
Except to add I think we need to open the border a bit, I find it unamerican to not allow immigration of anyone hard working.
Look at the Great Wall, it may be the exception proving the rule in that it was not breached, but China was nevertheless invaded and what allowed their survival as a culture? Was it their ability to reject the invader and their cultures?
I submit it was their ability to absorb the invader.
America is even more able to do that, we're 100% made of invaders! Have no fear.
The more open the borders of the US, I believe, the more we are the de facto leader not just of a single nation, but of a whole world.
if you punished the businesses, they will react. The demand will reduce.
Note, from my point of view this is a hypothetical question only, I believe we ought to make it easy for any hard worker in the world to come to america.
I didn't mean after timewise, just slightly lesser in importance. Sealing the boarder does accomplish more that just ending illegal immigration. There is a security aspect.
I think the hard worker statement is a misdirection, with respect.
The one point ol Dobbs makes pretty clearly is that we are importing wage deflation with both legal and illegal immigration. I've no problem bringing in people to fill a need, just not a need at a lowball wage vs. a fair, liveable wage.
I strongly oppose building walls and barriers. For one thing, they are very disruptive to migratory species, such as the bighorn sheep. Secondly, they are visually and spiritually ugly, and project offensiveness to our neighbors. Third, to the extent that immigration needs to be controlled, it can be controlled through hiring practices alone.
Honestly Pyrrho, you need to be a little bit more realistic. I understand you are being idealistic but US does not need an unlimited amount of unskilled labor. US and any other souvereign country is absolutely justified in placing controls on who is allowed to enter.
It is a shame that we have let it slide this far.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think we need to punish any business when we discover a criminal working for them. Maybe we should charge them with the same crime as clearly they are as guilty of comitting it.
So if we find a murderer working for the local Walmart we should string those eeevil heirs for murder 1.
Yay, liberal logic works out well. Lets go after businesses first! Evil capitalists.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Sounds like a good start. But I'm not convinced a fence is enough to keep the illegals out. Will it be electrified? Will there be armed guards? Dogs? We need to have a game plan here.
Wow you mean we have more than one group of people immigrating here illegally and (gasp) more than one border ;). Are we pulling out the barbed wire for our Canadian border too or are we just going to pretend that that border can't be utilized?
The problem is half of Mexico wants to move here, because Mexico is such a relatively crappy place to live due to the economic and political mismanagement. The immigration problem will not be fixed until that changes; you can't militarize the border a la Korea, which is one of the very few borders that divides a comparable difference in GDP per capita, and nothing less will prevent motivated migrants from?finding a way?across. And, unfortunately, there isn't all that much we can do to change conditions in Mexico, though free trade probably helps
We have shipped jobs overseas to cheaper labor markets. No question.
But linking that to people then wanting to come here is nonsensical to me. We've shipped quite a few jobs to Mexico. The problem is, there are way more poor Mexicans than those jobs can cover. Their economy is screwed up, in great part due to a Republican approach to taxes, land ownership, asset ownership. The few have it all and pay little tax and the rest just struggle but pay most of the taxes which are on consumption. That and our Ag policies which have killed their markets with subsidized exports. If not for the oil rev to provide some minimal services, that place would go up in flames.
And a lot of Americans don't mind buying their labor off the back of a truck (so to speak). The same rednecks that decry illegal immigration think nothing of going down to Home Depot, or whereever the illegals congregate, to get day workers to do whatever for cash. We're a hypocritical nation.
As for trying to impose wage mins overseas, I wouldn't hold your breath trying to sell that one.
First, we stop letting them export their disaffected people to our markets. In fairness, we need to stop screwing up their Ag markets with cheap exports too. No money, pissed off populace, new government?
If V. Fox doesn't like it, we could always fund some revolutionaries to attack the government here and there. I hear Ollie North needs some work.....
We don't have world economy in all ways. You cannot arbitrage physical services such as gardening, construction, hotel work, ag work to India or China. We can keep those jobs well paid enough to provide a decent living if we hold out the 2 billion people on the earth that live on less than $5/day.
We need a more orderly race to the median than just opening the floodgates. I find it un American to kill the ability of our own lower middle class to make a decent living by using the world's virtually unlimited supply of destitute labor to undercut him/her.
The natives might also quibble re your 100% invaders assertion as well.
honestly, the point is to realize we have a world economy.
A world economy is one proposition. A world government is something else entirely. I took for granted in my post that everyone would object to the latter - maybe down the line we can have a discussion about that.
insofar as we have a cooperative world economy with many stabilizer CONTROLLING the stability of the planet, we even have a -de facto- world government.
I disagree with this both as a descriptive and normative proposition. Again, this will require a separate post.
Border are porous, there is no rigid border. Trying to create a rigid border is doomed to failure and a sign of insanity, I think, though I don?t mean to be harsh, consider that mere rhetoric, I?m not calling you insane, but the policy, yes.
You're arguing against a proposition I'm not defending - I've never said that a border shouldn't be porous, or that it must be absolutely successful in keeping EVERYONE out. The point is that, a sovereign nation must be able to delineate the physical territory within their control, and must have the substantial (if not absolute) ability to control the flow of people across that border. This does not presently exist in the Southwest United States.
Except to add I think we need to open the border a bit, I find it unamerican to not allow immigration of anyone hard working.
No one is opposed to legal immigration as a principle, but it's false to assume that unlimited immigration is an equally good thing. Again, both economic policy and sovereignty demand a limited amount of legal immigration.
Look at the Great Wall, it may be the exception proving the rule in that it was not breached, but China was nevertheless invaded and what allowed their survival as a culture? Was it their ability to reject the invader and their cultures?
Again, I think I stated that I didn't favor a Great Wall of Mexico, necessarily. There are other ways to secure a border that simply require the will to enforce. The problem is that that will has been lacking (as I pointed out upthread).
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
In previous debates on this issue I've supported going after businesses. I just think it's very funny that every time someone proposes various solutions, even just talking about securing the border, a liberal will always jump in with "well we really need to go after businesses who hire them".
Unfailingly this is the most often used response, like that will magically solve all our problems. I simply pointed out that liberals love the idea of going after businesses and will use any pretext to sneak that in.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It should have those people home but the nnumber grew after those treaties were enacted because those NAFTA/CAFTA are a disasters. They not only destroy Amercian jo0bs by sending them to global competition but keep these countries poor for the low wages in the global market.
Free trade agreements are a disaster because they address none of the issues that would actuallt make lives better for Americans and Mexicans alike.
Supply-and-Demand Solutions
By David Sirota
Amid all the rhetoric in the superheated immigration debate, many have forgotten the key question: Why?
Why do so many Mexicans want to come to America in the first place? The answers to this question revolve around the concept of supply and demand ? and they tell us about how to address illegal immigration and overcome the core economic challenges facing middle-class Americans.
Fact: Many Mexicans are willing to risk their lives to enter the United States illegally because they are desperate to find a better life. In supply-and-demand terms, the supply of jobs in Mexico that one can subsist on is far less than the demand for such jobs.
But that raises the next and deeper ?why? question: Why is the supply of decent-paying jobs in Mexico so low? Therein lies an issue neither Democrats nor Republicans want to address, because it touches on public policies both have supported.
Fact: Both political parties have joined hands in recent years to ink trade pacts that have destroyed the Mexican economy and created a supply-and-demand imbalance there. The biggest of these was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ? a pact sold to the American people as a job creator here, and an economic development tool for Mexico. But, of course, the pact did not include any provisions to protect or increase Mexican workers? wages, workplace standards or human rights, thus all it did was open up a cheap labor pool for companies to exploit.
Fact: A decade after NAFTA?s passage, America is still hemorrhaging the good-paying jobs that NAFTA was supposed to create. As for Mexico, the Washington Post?s report on the 10-year anniversary of NAFTA told the story: 19 million more Mexicans now live in poverty than before the pact was signed. Similarly, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich points out, ?Mexico?s real wages are lower than they were before [NAFTA].? And because NAFTA included no provisions to force companies to improve Mexican working conditions, jobs that were created in Mexico still pay near-slave wages For instance, the Associated Press noted this week that ?Many young [Mexicans] have manual jobs on minimum wage of $5 a day.?
Time Magazine recently shed further light on the situation, reporting that , ?Even when new jobs do appear, [Mexico?s] unforgiving low-wage business culture ? the dark shame of Mexico?s political and economic leaders, which NAFTA was also supposed to reform ? makes sure that they still often pay in a day what similar work would pay in an hour in the United States.?
Not surprisingly, Mexican workers? demand for a better life hasn?t gone away ? in economic terms, the demand is inelastic. And so that demand is looking for a job supply north of the border.
This is the supply-and-demand reality that no amount of emotional rhetoric can change ? and in that reality we can find the way to address illegal immigration: by stopping the demand instead of trying to block the supply. The Academy Award-winning movie, ?Traffic,? highlighted the perils of waging a drug war that only focuses on trying to block the supply of narcotics, rather than on eliminating the demand for them.
These same lessons can be applied to illegal immigration. The best way to stop illegal entry into our country from Mexico is to tamp down the demand by Mexicans to enter this country illegally. After all, no wall, no fence, no border security measure can be as effective as reducing the demand for entry. This means reforming our trade policy to include serious wage, workplace and human-rights provisions so that cross-border commerce actually improves the lives of Mexican workers to the point where they no longer feel the dire economic need to break our immigration laws.
Think about it this way: Had NAFTA lifted 19 million Mexicans out of poverty as promised instead of helping to drive 19 million Mexicans into poverty, you can bet the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border would be a trickle instead of the flood it is today. To be sure, politicians are talking about amnesty or guest-worker programs to give workers some kind of legal status. But if those proposals do not come hand-in-hand with a reform of America?s trade policies, they are destined to be what they have been in the past ? merely short-term, stopgap measures, not real solutions.
Until America?s political leaders start making trade policy address the imbalance between the demand for good jobs and the supply of good jobs in Mexico, illegal immigration will continue to be a major problem right here at home.
And what of Mexico? Since NAFTA's implementation, direct foreign investment in Mexico has totaled $124 billion - more than five times the amount recorded during the previous decade. Mexico's exports to the United States have nearly tripled, making it America's second-largest trading partner, topped only by Canada. Mexico's economy has averaged a four percent growth rate over the last 10 years, despite a devastating financial crisis in 1995.
Even so, Mexico's overall poverty rate has remained static, at roughly one fourth of the population. The World Bank's vice president for Latin America and the Caribbean, David de Ferranti, says NAFTA has been a boon to Mexico's northern regions, which saw a surge in manufacturing activity, but has had little if any impact on the rest of the country. Speaking at a recent conference in Washington, Mr. De Ferranti described NAFTA as a moderate success for Mexico.
"Overall positive, but falling unevenly across the economy and population of Mexico," he said. "The benefits could have been better if more had been done in Mexico to address key development issues, for example, to correct under-investment in education, innovation and infrastructure."
And what of Mexico? Since NAFTA's implementation, direct foreign investment in Mexico has totaled $124 billion - more than five times the amount recorded during the previous decade. Mexico's exports to the United States have nearly tripled, making it America's second-largest trading partner, topped only by Canada. Mexico's economy has averaged a four percent growth rate over the last 10 years, despite a devastating financial crisis in 1995.
Even so, Mexico's overall poverty rate has remained static, at roughly one fourth of the population. The World Bank's vice president for Latin America and the Caribbean, David de Ferranti, says NAFTA has been a boon to Mexico's northern regions, which saw a surge in manufacturing activity, but has had little if any impact on the rest of the country. Speaking at a recent conference in Washington, Mr. De Ferranti described NAFTA as a moderate success for Mexico.
"Overall positive, but falling unevenly across the economy and population of Mexico," he said. "The benefits could have been better if more had been done in Mexico to address key development issues, for example, to correct under-investment in education, innovation and infrastructure."
I've always admired Clinton's free?trade policy. It was a principled, intelligent stand. Economists generally agree free trade is good.
OTOH, my understanding is that virtually all wealth in Mexico is controlled by 30 families.? Sounds like we may be enriching them at everyone else's expense.
Imo we need to look at the big picture and not be so prone to band-aid solutions.
Residency in the US is highly desirable to millions upon millions of people in the world. We have to step back and make sure that whatever system we end up with is reasonably fair to everyone.
For example, though I am Cuban-American, I would prefer that the Cuban "dry foot" rule be abolished for the simple reason that it isn't fair. Why should Cubans be given preferential treatment compared to Haitians? Are the Haitians not equally desparate, poor and subjugated?
Same goes for Mexico. Mexico should be alotted its fair share of immigrants but not one person more, because if all the slots are taken up by Mexicans it means poor people from other nations aren't going to get a shot at being residents.
There are plenty of deserving people in places like Africa who would love to be able to live in the US and go to school here. I had a black south african professor in college who was the happiest man in the world simply because he had escaped that hell hole.
Immigration is not about US being fair to various poor peoples around the world. Immigration is about US getting the best and the brightest to our own benefit. The point of any US policy is supposed to be looked at from the point of view of what's in our own best interest. Not what's fair to the Hatians or Africans.
So hopefully the House will not allow watering down our immigration standards of who we let in. I know republican leadership there is not as appeasing of whatever the "world wants" as the pathetic Senate.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
just rereading your comment about us being fair to everyone... how sad. Every country in the world does whatever is in their own best interest yet American liberals want us to do whatever everyone else wants. I really hope the '08 republican candidate will point that out. Elect a democrat and you will be saddled with people not interested in what's best for US.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This comment does not really touch on the immigration debate directly, but discusses your point about a world economy vs a world government.
Most political philosophers I have read, from Aristotle to Machiavelli to Locke, and even Marx, argue that the nation-state as we know it is developed to protect the assets and resources of the wealthy (i.e. those that have these resources). In this framework, a world economy necessitates a world government to level the playing field and open the markets up to those with resources. In effect, that?s what these free-trade agreements are attempting to accomplish, the development of a de facto world government. Other organizations, such as the WTO and World Bank help this process along. It seems to me, those we call liberal are not in favor of this type of world government, but conservatives might be. OTOH, liberals tend to believe in universal human rights and such, and they believe that some type of world forum, such as the UN can accomplish this. I think both have their positives and negatives, but the economic-type world government is actually more aligned with our conception of a nation-state than the liberal version, since governments were not originally initiated to discuss human rights-type issues. So when I hear conservatives rail about a world government (UN black helicopters and New World Order stuff) I think they actually need to look at their own.
Our idea of a state or nation in a couple of decades will change dramatically because of these economic realities (Multi-national corporations, etc).
Elect Republicans and you saddled with politicians beholden to the campaign donor class not interested in what's best for America. As someone said ealrier you are selective in what youi listen to. Cubans good because they are the best and the brightest? Why? Because they vote for republicans?
You bring the level of discussion down on this entire site because you invite ad hominen attacks on yourself. You answer no serious questions that point out the bursting of the little bubble world you live in of Rush/fox/rnc talking points.
Tell me how Cubans are smarter than Hatians and Africans? Other than they vote republican at a higher percentage. What redfish says is just plain logic and rational thought. You can't justify letting more of one group in and then write laws to that effect.
Free trade is good but not at a detriment to the people while benefitting the corporate elite. It would have been more pricipled and intelligent had Clinton worked include provisions to protect or increase workers? wages, workplace standards, human rights, and environmental standards.
This is Clinton's biggest failure. One of the few that he had. It also paved the way for the passage of CAFTA.
Where did I say Cubans were smarter? I only stated that it is in our best interest to get the best and the brightest from other nations. Admittedly Cubans will have a higher percentage of educated people than those others. Of course the reason we allow those pesky Cubans in as refugees is because of the communist regime there.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yep. Better starting uncoiling the concertina wire across Niagara Falls:
A "robust Irish smuggling ring" operating out of a popular pub in Buffalo has been smuggling dozens of Irish citizens from Canada into the United States for about three years, U.S. court documents show.
The proprietor, bartenders and customers of the pub, which is less than five kilometres from the Peace Bridge border crossing at Fort Erie, Ont., have shuttled across the border as many as 50 Irish nationals, many of whom had previously been deported or denied entry into the United States.
The jobs we contract out or openly employ in China and Mexico are typically lower than minimum wage. Thus, the economy we stimulate in Mexico and China is one that exists on lower than minimum wage. A Walmart in Shanghai has to serve people making $2/hr rather than $4/hr, so products are sold cheaper, which in turn generates less revenue for the store, which depresses wages for employees which makes running a Walmart in Shanghai only economically viable if they pay their employees $2/hr.
Pay everyone in Shanghai a little extra, and suddenly Walmarts do more business and have the option to pay their employees more.
Thus, the jobs we export across the board have an impact on the economy of those countries. If we contract out many of those foreigners, we'll have an impact on much of the country's economy. But why work at a Walmart in Shanghai for $2/hr when you can do the same work for better pay in America. So a bunch of Chinese people get on a boat and sneak into California. They get paid better at an LA Walmart, and they send the extra money back home. Same with Mexico. Why do daylabor outside a Mexican Home Depot where wages are depressed when you can do better business outside an American Home Depot and send the extra cash back home where everything is cheap?
Comments :
Cool. Welcome to yo
Cool. Welcome to you, Leon. (I think the only realisitic explanation of Armando's time excesses is that he travels at the speed of light when posting. So he's probably ageing really well, too. What else?)
Welcome Leon. I w
Welcome Leon.
I won't say anything about your mother, I promise. Hope we can have some productive discussion.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
If he were traveling
If he were traveling at near the speed of light wouldn't time go more slowly for him?
He'd also be purplish. And that's not a realistic explanation, it's a relativistic one. ;)
Welcome Leon. Gla
Welcome Leon.
Glad to see you here.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Welcome, Leon, thank
Welcome, Leon, thanks for taking the time and good luck at Vanderbilt!
I'm a graduate of the "school of hard knocks" myself, and I always look forward to gaining insights through other's experiences and backgrounds here at SC.
Can't wait for a rou
Can't wait for a rousing debate on your favorite subject. Glad to see you lend your voice to the fray. It should add some depth and color to the clinking of the swords.
It is the economy, stupid.
yeah, but he would b
yeah, but he would be ageing well.
Welcome, Leon... I p
Welcome, Leon... I promise that if I ever feel compelled to disparage your mother, I'll disparage George W. Bush's mother instead... you have my word... at times I'll even disparage George W. Bush's mother when I don't feel compelled to disparage yours... cheers...
I think a few carefu
I think a few carefully selected abortions would allow us to breed a good lineup for SwordsCrossed.
Welcome!
was that really nece
was that really necessary? Bad enough when they do it.
I hope you can bring
I hope you can bring some insight into the workings of the Republican mind. But I also hope you do more than just link to Redstate.
Your comment Mr. P i
Your comment Mr. P is in bad taste.
It is the economy, stupid.
Welcome. But Vand
Welcome.
But Vanderbilt "the greatest school on Earth?"
How many schools have you been to?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Heh... I'm not compl
Heh... I'm not completely immune from th esiren call of provincialism, you know.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Greetings, welcome,
Greetings, welcome, and congratulations (I guess) for taking on the Sisyphean task of keeping up with Armando.
I would probably gre
I would probably greet any social conservative with trepidation, but welcome and good luck.
By the way, you'll h
By the way, you'll have to quit school now.
This is a full-time gig.
The pay sucks to start, but once the ad revenue starts flowing, you'll be rolling in it.
Money, I mean.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I consider that gent
I consider that gentle ribbing. Given what provoked it.
2 Branches can const
2 Branches can constrain 1. They got a warrant from a judge so I see nothing wrong with this. No branch is above the law, which is why I expect this will quickly turn into a discussion of the President's claim of being above laws such as FISA.
Wow, that's the firs
Wow, that's the first time I've seen Harry Reid make sense. What a bunch of blowhards is the rest of the crew over there... I am ashamed of their public outcry.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think it is import
I think it is important to separate the crime, Jeffersons, from the FBI raid on a Congressional office. To me it is yet another step in the direction of greater executive power.
We all know Yoo and Addington are dizzy with the thought of a unitary executive and broader Presidential powers. Starting with America's first pre-emptive war, an unprecedented number of signing statements, over riding the FISA courts, and now the first ever FBI raid on a Congressional office.
Step back and view it in perspective Leon. It is cause for concern.
While the public outcry seems a bit stinky, I think it is warrented and offers and opportunity for democrats who have been questioning executive overreach to actually do something since the Republicans are up in arms about this. In spite of the cover my ass don't investigate me feeling of this, I think checking this President's sense of unbridled authority is a brillaint idea. I am all for it.
It is the economy, stupid.
I agree with Leon an
I agree with Leon and Ender on this one. Out of all the things I fault this Congress for having done or not done the last five years, that they pick this issue to stake a claim as a coequal branch is laughable were it not so tragically corrupt.
A simple protocol in matters like this would avoid any perception of Executive branch overreach.
I also think Pelosi got it right and Jefferson should resign his committee assignment, and the CBC should support that instead of crying racism.
The problem is, as I
The problem is, as I understand it, Jefferson was served a subpoena for the documents last summer, and has yet to respond to it. The reporting on this is a bit vague, so I may be misunderstanding, but given those circumstances, isn't a raid of a Congressional office completely justified?
If you're worried about executive overreach, fine, but this seems to be a bad time to bring it up. It's almost certainly going to have a net negative effect on your side.
I tend to agree that there has been some overreach on the part of all three branches in recent years, but in this case it seems to me that the judicial and executive are acting prudently,and the legislative is overreaching. And again, I'll change my opinion completely if my understanding of the subpoena circumstances are wrong.
However, this isn't
However, this isn't a unitary executive action. Bush didn't unilaterally demand the invasion of Jefferson's office. This was not like the NSA domestic spying scandal, in which he deliberately circumvented the courts. In fact, there appears to be no overt actions by the White House at all. This was a by-the-book FBI investigation.
If the WH backs down on this, then we are truly seeing the end of checks and balances in the classic sense - one in which two of the three branches can rein in the third - and the beginning of a rather ridiculous seperation of powers, in which every branch just acts on its own irregardless of the others. Activist judges, unitary executives, and police-immune Congressmen. That's the recipe for anarchy.
That old saying, no
That old saying, no problem with the patriot act, I am safe, from that. No problem with NSA spying. I am safe from that. But then they came for me, and suddenly they realized that they, the Republican rubber stamp, bobble head, (only say yes to the President), then they came after them. Oh well, that's different.
At least there is someone left, Dennis Haster, and his merry band of yes-sayers, who are in a majority and finally willing to shake their heads sideways for once. No Mr. President this time you have gone too far.
It is the economy, stupid.
I tend to be in agre
I tend to be in agreement, here, and I think that the Dermocratic Caucus has chosen precisely the wrong issue upon which to stand.
Congress is not above the law. If the FBI had probable cause, and a warrant, they had the legal authority to search the environs identified in the warrant. Period. If there was no warrant, or they used an NSL, then all bets are off.
Missed the part wher
Missed the part where you explain why it has to e dealt with separately.
As for the issue generally, my positon has been posted here already.
Imo the great wrong
Imo the great wrong that is being done here is seeing this as an immigration problem and not as a Mexican problem.
Believe it or not, there are people in the world who are not Mexicans, and even Hispanics who are not Mexicans.
Yes, yes, I know it's crazy but it's true: Many persons are from Spanish-speaking nations and aren't even Mexican!!!
I say "A Pox On Both Your Houses"
The world does not revolve around Mexico.
Unfortunately the gu
Unfortunately the guest worker program and guest to citizneship program will probably fail because republicans are failures at governing.
'86 immigration rules still debated
By Gillian Flaccus
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - Luis Orozco was among the first in line nearly 20 years ago when federal lawmakers offered U.S. citizenship to nearly three million illegal immigrants. Today, he has a wife, two daughters and a car - but is still not a citizen.
For a surprising number of immigrants, the 1986 citizenship program has caused lingering problems. Hundreds of thousands whose applications were rejected sued the government and are only now seeing their visas processed. Thousands more sponsored relatives who still await legal residency.
What's more, immigration attorneys attribute much of today's immigration crisis to the last overhaul of citizenship rules, which they say encouraged fraud, increased unlawful border crossings, and set up employer sanctions that have never been enforced.
Those problems provide cautionary tales as Congress considers whether to grant citizenship eligibility to many, or any, of the nation's millions of illegal immigrants.
Orozco, who finally got a temporary residency card three months ago, said: "I hope the new people who apply have patience. I applied right away, and look how long it took."
Some immigration experts warn that the Senate bill, which proposes a path to "earned citizenship," contains the same conditions that invited a flood of lawsuits by excluding hundreds of thousands of applicants.
For Orozco, now 40, who crossed illegally from Mexico as a teenager, the 1986 amnesty seemed a chance to stop living in the shadows.
But an immigration official said he did not qualify because he left the United States briefly to visit his ill father. By Orozco's account, the official said that violated a key provision of the amnesty: that applicants could not leave the United States for one year beginning May 5, 1987.
As similar accounts mounted, attorneys filed more than a half-dozen class-action suits against the government.
According to the lawsuits, immigration officials told thousands of immigrants that they did not qualify because they briefly left the country, had violated tourist or student visas without notifying the government, or were legal for a brief period between 1982 and 1987.
Many immigrants received rulings that suspended deportation orders while the class-action cases moved through court. That allowed them to obtain work permits and driver's licenses. Others, such as Orozco, continued to live illegally.
In 2004, Orozco successfully applied for late amnesty under a settlement of one of the largest class-action cases, Catholic Social Services v. Ridge. The lead lawyer in that case fears that the Senate provision would repeat past mistakes.
The bill would make only one-fourth of 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States eligible for citizenship, said Peter Schey, a lawyer who has represented about 350,000 immigrants in amnesty lawsuits. In 1986, about half the six million illegal immigrants qualified without problems.
The Senate bill, which also includes border-security measures and a new guest-worker program, still must be reconciled with a House bill focused only on border enforcement.
Schey points to language requiring that an amnesty seeker have been in the United States illegally on one day - April 5, 2006 - to qualify for eventual citizenship. That, Schey said, would exclude thousands of illegal immigrants who briefly had legal status but lost it or violated the terms of their visas.
Schey said another provision that requires U.S. residence for five years to start on the citizenship path would exclude eight million or nine million immigrants.
Demetrios Papademetriou, a former Labor Department administrator who was involved in the 1986 amnesty, said a similar five-year residency provision then spawned many of the lawsuits - and plenty of fraud.
Papademetriou, now president of the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, said: "If you're going to swallow hard and go with a legalization program, then you might as well try to create incentives for virtually all of the people here."
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/14669486.htm
Well, that was more
Well, that was more or less the entire point - if you can't assure that, going forward, the people entering your country will be subject to its jurisdiction, any program that places limits or conditions upon their remaining here is a farce.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
It's a two-sided fen
It's a two-sided fence.
If you don't allow for more immigration, people will still try to cross the boarder - fence or no. And unless you plan on tossing the half-million boarder hopers in jail for extended periods of time or use some other equally harsh deteriant, they'll continue to come.
If you don't enforce the boarder at all, people won't feel the need to negotiate the beaurocracy at all and will hop out of expediency.
However, I think it's somewhat of a fallacy to give one more importance than the other. Enforcing boarder security first without reforming immigration practices will only fatten the wallets of smart and successful coyotes. Creating an elaborate immigration policy with no enforcement mechanism first will not encourage anyone to depart the status quo of illegally immigrating. These policies have to be implimented at the same time to show we're both serious about boarders AND responsive to an increased demand for immigration.
That is an argument
That is an argument for dealing with it concurrently, not spearately.
In light of 1986, it
In light of 1986, it's not.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
In light of 1986? No
In light of 1986? No, that does not make sense. All you are advocating for is more of the same.
Lou Dobbs will tell you, enforce the laws on the books.
<a href="http://www.
Here
is why that won't work:
That is the calculus when it comes to immigration.
P.S. I'm not interested in Lou's opinion on much of anything.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I don't know if I ag
I don't know if I agree with you yet Leon, but immediately I like you. That at least makes sense, although I don't know exatly how it relates to policy or solving immigration.
And anyone who think
And anyone who thinks Lou's opinion on immigration isn't worth its bandwidth is alright in my book.
Leon, I notice that
Leon, I notice that you did not mention enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants. IMO if there is any real desire to reduce the number of people crossing our borders illegally, this needs to be one of the primary building blocks. Personally, I question whether either bill would be effective. What is to prevent any bill from being just another unfunded mandate. As eraske has stated in his post, our government has not honored the bill passed in 1986, President Bush promised 2000 additional border guards and funded 200 and the INS is years behind in processing its existing work load. I find it hard to believe that any thing will really change and am prone to this is just pre-election posturing.
You're right (and in
You're right (and incidentally, did I screw up the comment thread?) Employer enforcement is a very good first place to start.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
What also needs to b
What also needs to be pointed out is that CAFTA and NAFTA have both been part of the problem of immigration. Comprehensive immigration reform must start with insuring that corporations are following the law because paying undocumented workers illegal wages that skirt labor laws bring the standard of living down for all and trade agreements that keep nations impoverished cause the flood of illegal immigrants to America. These unfair trade agreements also impact the american workers twice by allowing competion in the global market to skirt labor laws and treat their citizens poorly for pennies while not following the same labor and environmental regulations that these companies would face in America.
The explosion of undocumented workers in America is a direct result of CAFTA and NAFTA.
using illegals is fa
using illegals is far more a problem with smaller companies than "corporations". I know Walmart used the old "not my employee, just a contractor" lie.
I don't see your link to Nafta/Cafta at all. These treaties should have kept these people home.
After securing the b
After securing the border, it's number 1. We have to punish the johns more instead of just punishing the whores. No demand, supply withers.
It will be interesting to see if the GOP is willing to crap on the Chamber of Commerce types that love the below fair market labor .
Alot of American job
Alot of American jobs get shipped over the boarder because wags are lower overseas. Then those overseas countries end up sending us large numbers of immigrants who want to be paid more.
Perhaps part of the problem is letting American companies profiteer in foreign nations.
Here's a thought: expand minimum wage laws to include employees of all businesses that do their business in the US. If you're a textile company and you want to sell shirts in America, you have to pay your employees (or contract with companies that pay their employees) the fair minimum wage alotted to American citizens.
If you want to do business in our country, I don't see why you should be allowed to skirt our labor laws by hopping the boarder. The American economy is attractive enough to keep businesses selling here. And I suspect you'd see sweatshops dry up as the practice loses it's economic viability.
honestly, the point
honestly, the point is to realize we have a world economy.
insofar as we have a cooperative world economy with many stabilizer CONTROLLING the stability of the planet, we even have a -de facto- world government.
Border are porous, there is no rigid border. Trying to create a rigid border is doomed to failure and a sign of insanity, I think, though I don't mean to be harsh, consider that mere rhetoric, I'm not calling you insane, but the policy, yes.
I do agree with the notion that to have a porous border, then, requires the ability to regulate the border, but I would need a specific plan to believe that we need anything more than current laws enforced.
Except to add I think we need to open the border a bit, I find it unamerican to not allow immigration of anyone hard working.
Look at the Great Wall, it may be the exception proving the rule in that it was not breached, but China was nevertheless invaded and what allowed their survival as a culture? Was it their ability to reject the invader and their cultures?
I submit it was their ability to absorb the invader.
America is even more able to do that, we're 100% made of invaders! Have no fear.
The more open the borders of the US, I believe, the more we are the de facto leader not just of a single nation, but of a whole world.
why after? if you
why after?
if you punished the businesses, they will react. The demand will reduce.
Note, from my point of view this is a hypothetical question only, I believe we ought to make it easy for any hard worker in the world to come to america.
I didn't mean after
I didn't mean after timewise, just slightly lesser in importance. Sealing the boarder does accomplish more that just ending illegal immigration. There is a security aspect.
I think the hard worker statement is a misdirection, with respect.
The one point ol Dobbs makes pretty clearly is that we are importing wage deflation with both legal and illegal immigration. I've no problem bringing in people to fill a need, just not a need at a lowball wage vs. a fair, liveable wage.
I strongly oppose bu
I strongly oppose building walls and barriers. For one thing, they are very disruptive to migratory species, such as the bighorn sheep. Secondly, they are visually and spiritually ugly, and project offensiveness to our neighbors. Third, to the extent that immigration needs to be controlled, it can be controlled through hiring practices alone.
Honestly Pyrrho, you
Honestly Pyrrho, you need to be a little bit more realistic. I understand you are being idealistic but US does not need an unlimited amount of unskilled labor. US and any other souvereign country is absolutely justified in placing controls on who is allowed to enter.
It is a shame that we have let it slide this far.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
In this immigration
In this immigration debate I am amused by the liberal fetish of punishing businesses who employ illegal immigrants. It's hilarious.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think we need to p
I think we need to punish any business when we discover a criminal working for them. Maybe we should charge them with the same crime as clearly they are as guilty of comitting it.
So if we find a murderer working for the local Walmart we should string those eeevil heirs for murder 1.
Yay, liberal logic works out well. Lets go after businesses first! Evil capitalists.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Sounds like a good s
Sounds like a good start. But I'm not convinced a fence is enough to keep the illegals out. Will it be electrified? Will there be armed guards? Dogs? We need to have a game plan here.
Hello? Land mines?
You're starting to g
You're starting to get it, Ender.
Wow you mean we have
Wow you mean we have more than one group of people immigrating here illegally and (gasp) more than one border ;). Are we pulling out the barbed wire for our Canadian border too or are we just going to pretend that that border can't be utilized?
Compound F Please
Compound F
Please don't give them any brilliant ideas. We all know how the GOP likes to do national security on the cheap.....just look at Iraq.
The problem is half
The problem is half of Mexico wants to move here, because Mexico is such a relatively crappy place to live due to the economic and political mismanagement. The immigration problem will not be fixed until that changes; you can't militarize the border a la Korea, which is one of the very few borders that divides a comparable difference in GDP per capita, and nothing less will prevent motivated migrants from?finding a way?across. And, unfortunately, there isn't all that much we can do to change conditions in Mexico, though free trade probably helps
We have shipped jobs
We have shipped jobs overseas to cheaper labor markets. No question.
But linking that to people then wanting to come here is nonsensical to me. We've shipped quite a few jobs to Mexico. The problem is, there are way more poor Mexicans than those jobs can cover. Their economy is screwed up, in great part due to a Republican approach to taxes, land ownership, asset ownership. The few have it all and pay little tax and the rest just struggle but pay most of the taxes which are on consumption. That and our Ag policies which have killed their markets with subsidized exports. If not for the oil rev to provide some minimal services, that place would go up in flames.
And a lot of Americans don't mind buying their labor off the back of a truck (so to speak). The same rednecks that decry illegal immigration think nothing of going down to Home Depot, or whereever the illegals congregate, to get day workers to do whatever for cash. We're a hypocritical nation.
As for trying to impose wage mins overseas, I wouldn't hold your breath trying to sell that one.
<blockquote>In this
why? In most of your arguments you beat the law and order drum as loudly as you can.
These business are breaking the law. Hang 'em high. I assume you have no problem jailing any other lawbreaker who is profiting by his illegal acts?
I find your selective approach to law and order laughable (though not unexpected).
this is not a libera
this is not a liberal argument. It would take a Republican to mangle logic this badly.
there's quite a bit
there's quite a bit we can do to pressure Mexico.
First, we stop letting them export their disaffected people to our markets. In fairness, we need to stop screwing up their Ag markets with cheap exports too. No money, pissed off populace, new government?
If V. Fox doesn't like it, we could always fund some revolutionaries to attack the government here and there. I hear Ollie North needs some work.....
can't agree. We d
can't agree.
We don't have world economy in all ways. You cannot arbitrage physical services such as gardening, construction, hotel work, ag work to India or China. We can keep those jobs well paid enough to provide a decent living if we hold out the 2 billion people on the earth that live on less than $5/day.
We need a more orderly race to the median than just opening the floodgates. I find it un American to kill the ability of our own lower middle class to make a decent living by using the world's virtually unlimited supply of destitute labor to undercut him/her.
The natives might also quibble re your 100% invaders assertion as well.
<i>honestly, the poi
honestly, the point is to realize we have a world economy.
A world economy is one proposition. A world government is something else entirely. I took for granted in my post that everyone would object to the latter - maybe down the line we can have a discussion about that.
insofar as we have a cooperative world economy with many stabilizer CONTROLLING the stability of the planet, we even have a -de facto- world government.
I disagree with this both as a descriptive and normative proposition. Again, this will require a separate post.
Border are porous, there is no rigid border. Trying to create a rigid border is doomed to failure and a sign of insanity, I think, though I don?t mean to be harsh, consider that mere rhetoric, I?m not calling you insane, but the policy, yes.
You're arguing against a proposition I'm not defending - I've never said that a border shouldn't be porous, or that it must be absolutely successful in keeping EVERYONE out. The point is that, a sovereign nation must be able to delineate the physical territory within their control, and must have the substantial (if not absolute) ability to control the flow of people across that border. This does not presently exist in the Southwest United States.
Except to add I think we need to open the border a bit, I find it unamerican to not allow immigration of anyone hard working.
No one is opposed to legal immigration as a principle, but it's false to assume that unlimited immigration is an equally good thing. Again, both economic policy and sovereignty demand a limited amount of legal immigration.
Look at the Great Wall, it may be the exception proving the rule in that it was not breached, but China was nevertheless invaded and what allowed their survival as a culture? Was it their ability to reject the invader and their cultures?
Again, I think I stated that I didn't favor a Great Wall of Mexico, necessarily. There are other ways to secure a border that simply require the will to enforce. The problem is that that will has been lacking (as I pointed out upthread).
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
In previous debates
In previous debates on this issue I've supported going after businesses. I just think it's very funny that every time someone proposes various solutions, even just talking about securing the border, a liberal will always jump in with "well we really need to go after businesses who hire them".
Unfailingly this is the most often used response, like that will magically solve all our problems. I simply pointed out that liberals love the idea of going after businesses and will use any pretext to sneak that in.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It should have those
It should have those people home but the nnumber grew after those treaties were enacted because those NAFTA/CAFTA are a disasters. They not only destroy Amercian jo0bs by sending them to global competition but keep these countries poor for the low wages in the global market.
Free trade agreement
Free trade agreements are a disaster because they address none of the issues that would actuallt make lives better for Americans and Mexicans alike.
Supply-and-Demand Solutions
By David Sirota
Amid all the rhetoric in the superheated immigration debate, many have forgotten the key question: Why?
Why do so many Mexicans want to come to America in the first place? The answers to this question revolve around the concept of supply and demand ? and they tell us about how to address illegal immigration and overcome the core economic challenges facing middle-class Americans.
Fact: Many Mexicans are willing to risk their lives to enter the United States illegally because they are desperate to find a better life. In supply-and-demand terms, the supply of jobs in Mexico that one can subsist on is far less than the demand for such jobs.
But that raises the next and deeper ?why? question: Why is the supply of decent-paying jobs in Mexico so low? Therein lies an issue neither Democrats nor Republicans want to address, because it touches on public policies both have supported.
Fact: Both political parties have joined hands in recent years to ink trade pacts that have destroyed the Mexican economy and created a supply-and-demand imbalance there. The biggest of these was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ? a pact sold to the American people as a job creator here, and an economic development tool for Mexico. But, of course, the pact did not include any provisions to protect or increase Mexican workers? wages, workplace standards or human rights, thus all it did was open up a cheap labor pool for companies to exploit.
Fact: A decade after NAFTA?s passage, America is still hemorrhaging the good-paying jobs that NAFTA was supposed to create. As for Mexico, the Washington Post?s report on the 10-year anniversary of NAFTA told the story: 19 million more Mexicans now live in poverty than before the pact was signed. Similarly, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich points out, ?Mexico?s real wages are lower than they were before [NAFTA].? And because NAFTA included no provisions to force companies to improve Mexican working conditions, jobs that were created in Mexico still pay near-slave wages For instance, the Associated Press noted this week that ?Many young [Mexicans] have manual jobs on minimum wage of $5 a day.?
Time Magazine recently shed further light on the situation, reporting that , ?Even when new jobs do appear, [Mexico?s] unforgiving low-wage business culture ? the dark shame of Mexico?s political and economic leaders, which NAFTA was also supposed to reform ? makes sure that they still often pay in a day what similar work would pay in an hour in the United States.?
Not surprisingly, Mexican workers? demand for a better life hasn?t gone away ? in economic terms, the demand is inelastic. And so that demand is looking for a job supply north of the border.
This is the supply-and-demand reality that no amount of emotional rhetoric can change ? and in that reality we can find the way to address illegal immigration: by stopping the demand instead of trying to block the supply. The Academy Award-winning movie, ?Traffic,? highlighted the perils of waging a drug war that only focuses on trying to block the supply of narcotics, rather than on eliminating the demand for them.
These same lessons can be applied to illegal immigration. The best way to stop illegal entry into our country from Mexico is to tamp down the demand by Mexicans to enter this country illegally. After all, no wall, no fence, no border security measure can be as effective as reducing the demand for entry. This means reforming our trade policy to include serious wage, workplace and human-rights provisions so that cross-border commerce actually improves the lives of Mexican workers to the point where they no longer feel the dire economic need to break our immigration laws.
Think about it this way: Had NAFTA lifted 19 million Mexicans out of poverty as promised instead of helping to drive 19 million Mexicans into poverty, you can bet the flood of illegal immigrants across our southern border would be a trickle instead of the flood it is today. To be sure, politicians are talking about amnesty or guest-worker programs to give workers some kind of legal status. But if those proposals do not come hand-in-hand with a reform of America?s trade policies, they are destined to be what they have been in the past ? merely short-term, stopgap measures, not real solutions.
Until America?s political leaders start making trade policy address the imbalance between the demand for good jobs and the supply of good jobs in Mexico, illegal immigration will continue to be a major problem right here at home.
<i>we stop letting t
we stop letting them export their disaffected people to our markets.
I think you missed my second sentence.
Makes some good poin
Makes some good points. Here's a similar article.
----
And what of Mexico? Since NAFTA's implementation, direct foreign investment in Mexico has totaled $124 billion - more than five times the amount recorded during the previous decade. Mexico's exports to the United States have nearly tripled, making it America's second-largest trading partner, topped only by Canada. Mexico's economy has averaged a four percent growth rate over the last 10 years, despite a devastating financial crisis in 1995.
Even so, Mexico's overall poverty rate has remained static, at roughly one fourth of the population. The World Bank's vice president for Latin America and the Caribbean, David de Ferranti, says NAFTA has been a boon to Mexico's northern regions, which saw a surge in manufacturing activity, but has had little if any impact on the rest of the country. Speaking at a recent conference in Washington, Mr. De Ferranti described NAFTA as a moderate success for Mexico.
"Overall positive, but falling unevenly across the economy and population of Mexico," he said. "The benefits could have been better if more had been done in Mexico to address key development issues, for example, to correct under-investment in education, innovation and infrastructure."
And what of Mexico? Since NAFTA's implementation, direct foreign investment in Mexico has totaled $124 billion - more than five times the amount recorded during the previous decade. Mexico's exports to the United States have nearly tripled, making it America's second-largest trading partner, topped only by Canada. Mexico's economy has averaged a four percent growth rate over the last 10 years, despite a devastating financial crisis in 1995.
Even so, Mexico's overall poverty rate has remained static, at roughly one fourth of the population. The World Bank's vice president for Latin America and the Caribbean, David de Ferranti, says NAFTA has been a boon to Mexico's northern regions, which saw a surge in manufacturing activity, but has had little if any impact on the rest of the country. Speaking at a recent conference in Washington, Mr. De Ferranti described NAFTA as a moderate success for Mexico.
"Overall positive, but falling unevenly across the economy and population of Mexico," he said. "The benefits could have been better if more had been done in Mexico to address key development issues, for example, to correct under-investment in education, innovation and infrastructure."
----
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/3-12-31/17833.html
I've always admired Clinton's free?trade policy. It was a principled, intelligent stand. Economists generally agree free trade is good.
OTOH, my understanding is that virtually all wealth in Mexico is controlled by 30 families.? Sounds like we may be enriching them at everyone else's expense.
?
?
Imo we need to look
Imo we need to look at the big picture and not be so prone to band-aid solutions.
Residency in the US is highly desirable to millions upon millions of people in the world. We have to step back and make sure that whatever system we end up with is reasonably fair to everyone.
For example, though I am Cuban-American, I would prefer that the Cuban "dry foot" rule be abolished for the simple reason that it isn't fair. Why should Cubans be given preferential treatment compared to Haitians? Are the Haitians not equally desparate, poor and subjugated?
Same goes for Mexico. Mexico should be alotted its fair share of immigrants but not one person more, because if all the slots are taken up by Mexicans it means poor people from other nations aren't going to get a shot at being residents.
There are plenty of deserving people in places like Africa who would love to be able to live in the US and go to school here. I had a black south african professor in college who was the happiest man in the world simply because he had escaped that hell hole.
Immigration is not a
Immigration is not about US being fair to various poor peoples around the world. Immigration is about US getting the best and the brightest to our own benefit. The point of any US policy is supposed to be looked at from the point of view of what's in our own best interest. Not what's fair to the Hatians or Africans.
So hopefully the House will not allow watering down our immigration standards of who we let in. I know republican leadership there is not as appeasing of whatever the "world wants" as the pathetic Senate.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
just rereading your
just rereading your comment about us being fair to everyone... how sad. Every country in the world does whatever is in their own best interest yet American liberals want us to do whatever everyone else wants. I really hope the '08 republican candidate will point that out. Elect a democrat and you will be saddled with people not interested in what's best for US.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
This comment does no
This comment does not really touch on the immigration debate directly, but discusses your point about a world economy vs a world government.
Most political philosophers I have read, from Aristotle to Machiavelli to Locke, and even Marx, argue that the nation-state as we know it is developed to protect the assets and resources of the wealthy (i.e. those that have these resources). In this framework, a world economy necessitates a world government to level the playing field and open the markets up to those with resources. In effect, that?s what these free-trade agreements are attempting to accomplish, the development of a de facto world government. Other organizations, such as the WTO and World Bank help this process along. It seems to me, those we call liberal are not in favor of this type of world government, but conservatives might be. OTOH, liberals tend to believe in universal human rights and such, and they believe that some type of world forum, such as the UN can accomplish this. I think both have their positives and negatives, but the economic-type world government is actually more aligned with our conception of a nation-state than the liberal version, since governments were not originally initiated to discuss human rights-type issues. So when I hear conservatives rail about a world government (UN black helicopters and New World Order stuff) I think they actually need to look at their own.
Our idea of a state or nation in a couple of decades will change dramatically because of these economic realities (Multi-national corporations, etc).
Elect Republicans an
Elect Republicans and you saddled with politicians beholden to the campaign donor class not interested in what's best for America. As someone said ealrier you are selective in what youi listen to. Cubans good because they are the best and the brightest? Why? Because they vote for republicans?
You bring the level of discussion down on this entire site because you invite ad hominen attacks on yourself. You answer no serious questions that point out the bursting of the little bubble world you live in of Rush/fox/rnc talking points.
Tell me how Cubans are smarter than Hatians and Africans? Other than they vote republican at a higher percentage. What redfish says is just plain logic and rational thought. You can't justify letting more of one group in and then write laws to that effect.
Free trade is good b
Free trade is good but not at a detriment to the people while benefitting the corporate elite. It would have been more pricipled and intelligent had Clinton worked include provisions to protect or increase workers? wages, workplace standards, human rights, and environmental standards.
This is Clinton's biggest failure. One of the few that he had. It also paved the way for the passage of CAFTA.
Where did I say Cuba
Where did I say Cubans were smarter? I only stated that it is in our best interest to get the best and the brightest from other nations. Admittedly Cubans will have a higher percentage of educated people than those others. Of course the reason we allow those pesky Cubans in as refugees is because of the communist regime there.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yep. Better starting
Yep. Better starting uncoiling the concertina wire across Niagara Falls:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5a3107de-e1ba-4fe9-aaa1-a6ad09d55469&k=78612
qui tacet consentire
The jobs we contract
The jobs we contract out or openly employ in China and Mexico are typically lower than minimum wage. Thus, the economy we stimulate in Mexico and China is one that exists on lower than minimum wage. A Walmart in Shanghai has to serve people making $2/hr rather than $4/hr, so products are sold cheaper, which in turn generates less revenue for the store, which depresses wages for employees which makes running a Walmart in Shanghai only economically viable if they pay their employees $2/hr.
Pay everyone in Shanghai a little extra, and suddenly Walmarts do more business and have the option to pay their employees more.
Thus, the jobs we export across the board have an impact on the economy of those countries. If we contract out many of those foreigners, we'll have an impact on much of the country's economy. But why work at a Walmart in Shanghai for $2/hr when you can do the same work for better pay in America. So a bunch of Chinese people get on a boat and sneak into California. They get paid better at an LA Walmart, and they send the extra money back home. Same with Mexico. Why do daylabor outside a Mexican Home Depot where wages are depressed when you can do better business outside an American Home Depot and send the extra cash back home where everything is cheap?