American Politics

[TerraPrime]

I don't have a problem with giving police officers the authority to stop any persons suspected of being illegal residents to provide proof that they are not. I think that's actually a sound policy, if you wish to decrease the number of illegal residents. Where I grew up, this was routine, so this assuredly colored my view. But, really, the three times that I was stopped and asked for an ID, it took less than 3 minutes, and it was all quite polite. Of course, in the U.S., the spectre of racial profiling is of concern, but of the idea itself, I have no objection to.

As far as actual policies go, I can't see a step that can improve our screening process at the border without increasing our spending on the issue. I guess if the crowd demanding more control over illegal immigrants can convince the fiscal hawks, it can be done. As it turns out, it might not be that hard, since the two groups have significant overlaps in the GOP.

On the over all issue, I think what we need is comprehensive reform, not just a one-sided approach to eradicate illegal immigration. Give people with labor skills a legal, regulated way to enter into the U.S. and work here that is easy for them to obtain, and then increase our punishment against those who don't follow that procedure. I believe we will need both approaches to get a good handle on this situation, because the pressure to use low-cost labor for some of the jobs will not go away just because we manage to build an iron-clad wall to stop everyone from coming over illegally.

[ThinkerX]

Ok...

...most illegal aliens from 'down south' come to the US to work (with avoiding being killed in the current low grade mexican civil war also factoring in).

...but - what is the political affiliation of those hiring them?

I am almost willing to bet that the majority of those employing illegal aliens tend towards the republican end of the spectrum AND that at least some of these same people *want* these illegal aliens to *remain* illegal aliens, because if they could get legalized, then they, the employers would be forced to pay them more and it would cost them a degree of control over a cheap labor force.

Or to put it another way: if you could somehow ban illegal aliens overnight, something on the order of half the businesses within two hundred miles of the US-Mexican border would go out of business due to labor costs.

[Swordfish]

My point is that approval ratings have nothing to do with success at this point.

I suppose that depends how you define success.

But either way, unless you are saying that Reagan was a success despite his approval ratings, I fail to see how his presidency is relevant to your point at all, except to vaguely refute it.

So, are you saying that reagan was successful?

People are making a big deal about Obama's approval ratings being small at this point but the reality is that it doesn't mean much. Yes Obama's presidency will be successful. That's just my opinion though.

How are you defining success?

[Lord Mord]

好土同志,

As far as actual policies go, I can't see a step that can improve our screening process at the border without increasing our spending on the issue. I guess if the crowd demanding more control over illegal immigrants can convince the fiscal hawks, it can be done. As it turns out, it might not be that hard, since the two groups have significant overlaps in the GOP.

On the over all issue, I think what we need is comprehensive reform, not just a one-sided approach to eradicate illegal immigration. Give people with labor skills a legal, regulated way to enter into the U.S. and work here that is easy for them to obtain, and then increase our punishment against those who don't follow that procedure. I believe we will need both approaches to get a good handle on this situation, because the pressure to use low-cost labor for some of the jobs will not go away just because we manage to build an iron-clad wall to stop everyone from coming over illegally.

Why only people "with labor skills"? What defines a labor skill? Are all skills equally acceptable? Who will set the percentages, if not? Also: How will we keep out the unskilled? How will we track down the illegals to deal out your harsher punishments? And moreover, how will we answer these last two questions significantly better than every method tried to date?

Sure, you can't possibly have all the answers now, but can you make some suggestions?

[TerraPrime]

Why only people "with labor skills"? What defines a labor skill? Are all skills equally acceptable? Who will set the percentages, if not? Also: How will we keep out the unskilled? How will we track down the illegals to deal out your harsher punishments? And moreover, how will we answer these last two questions significantly better than every method tried to date?

Under the current immigration laws, there are 4 categories that you can go into. The more specialized skills you have, the easier it is to be approved for immigration. For instance, if you are a doctor, or a nurse, or an architect, immigration is a mere factor of finding employment and then going through paper work. The illegal immigrants that we're talking about fall mostly into the last category, unskilled labor, which means that they do not possess specialized job skills. That is why they are illegal immigrants, because it is so difficult for them to get legal permission to enter the U.S. to get jobs.

My thought is that we should recognize our need for cheap labor that are provided by these illegal immigrants. While the official policy denies entry to these people, the businesses, and by proxy the consumers in the U.S., obviously enjoy the labor provided by these unskilled workers. So I want to see a re-alignment of the policy and the real-life needs. I think we should create a new category of immigration so that unskilled laborers can enter into the U.S. more readily, which will by default reduce the number of illegals. Short-term work VISAs that lasts 6 months at a time, which would be granted to unskilled laborers would be a good start. It can also come with limitations on the number of family members they can bring with them.

As for enforcement, we will obviously need increased sampling. We can either increase the enforcement arm of the USCIS, which is currently handling immigration issues, or we can make the FBI take care of it (with appropriately increased funding for these new enforcers we will need). I think reporting by those who know of these business practices would be the major source of information to go track down businesses that are in violation.

Another idea I have is that we can allow states to "bid" on certain quotas of short-term immigrant workers. The idea is that we can take more immigrants, if a state agrees that they will take them in. The Federal government will set a base line for the number of short-term work VISAs, and each state can bid to add more. Whatever number they bid, that's the minimum number of short-term workers that these states must hire, for that period. There'll be 2 tracks for immigrants to apply, the general pool or the state-specific pool. The procedure is faster for the state pool, but they have to go to that state to work. In the general pool, the application process might be longer, but they can have a choice in where they work. Right now, businesses that rely on large bursts of temporary workers (mostly agribusinesses) in the border states (Texas, California, etc) seem to have a slight advantage in getting these workers more readily. If states like Idaho or Minnesota can compete in the cheap labor, then maybe we can equalize the playing field a bit, and it will also help check against the tendency to pay the workers at too low a wage.

[Elrick]

I suppose that depends how you define success.

But either way, unless you are saying that Reagan was a success despite his approval ratings, I fail to see how his presidency is relevant to your point at all, except to vaguely refute it.

So, are you saying that reagan was successful?

How are you defining success?

By republican and many independent standards he was.

I wanted to add that my major problem with this immigration bill is that it is easily subject to abuse plus what about an illegal immigrant that gets beaten and raped, where would she/he go? She wouldn't go to the cops because she would be afraid of going to jail.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

As far as actual policies go, I can't see a step that can improve our screening process at the border without increasing our spending on the issue. I guess if the crowd demanding more control over illegal immigrants can convince the fiscal hawks, it can be done. As it turns out, it might not be that hard, since the two groups have significant overlaps in the GOP.

The problem isn't the GOP on that issue. It's the Administration that has cut the money for border control, and the number of agents over GOP onjections.

[Annelise]

The problem isn't the GOP on that issue. It's the Administration that has cut the money for border control, and the number of agents over GOP onjections.

Well, it appears it has actually has increased the total amount of agents, but the admin has been moving them around:

Easterling said on Tuesday that in fiscal 2009, 17,399 Border Patrol agents have been deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border. In fiscal year 2010, the Border Patrol plans to decrease that by 384 agents, leaving 17,015 deployed along the Mexican frontier. At the same time, the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Canada border will be increased by 414, from a fiscal 2009 total of 1,798 agents to a fiscal 2010 total of 2,212.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54514

Homeland security's budget is up 2% this year and that evidently still doesn't cover our national security needs. I have no issue w/ the opinion that the smartest & most effective spending is along the borders, so long its also agreed it's got to come from somewhere else. I might even agree it's better spent on border security instead of diverting more to aviation but I would just need to read more about the cost and effectiveness of the particular programs they're cutting vs. what, specifically, they plan to spend it on.

The admin also sent 7000 troops down there last year I think, I don't know if they're still there though. I think Perry requested 10,000 for Texas alone. The key to meeting these particular needs, I would think, is resolving our foreign conflicts.

[Swordfish]

By republican and many independent standards he was.

I was asking you whether YOU considered him a success.

Why is that such a difficult question?

[Shryke]

My thought is that we should recognize our need for cheap labor that are provided by these illegal immigrants. While the official policy denies entry to these people, the businesses, and by proxy the consumers in the U.S., obviously enjoy the labor provided by these unskilled workers. So I want to see a re-alignment of the policy and the real-life needs. I think we should create a new category of immigration so that unskilled laborers can enter into the U.S. more readily, which will by default reduce the number of illegals. Short-term work VISAs that lasts 6 months at a time, which would be granted to unskilled laborers would be a good start. It can also come with limitations on the number of family members they can bring with them.

So you support the creation of a new like "Proxy Serf" category for immigrants?

I mean, the US "needs" cheap labour because companies can save money by hiring people who don't need to be payed the minimum wage and don't need to be provided with a safe work environment or any of that "Worker's Rights" stuff.

[Elrick]

I was asking you whether YOU considered him a success.

Why is that such a difficult question?

Yes in many areas he was. I'm biased though because I'm a democrat so I didn't care for most of his policies.

BTW no need to be antsy.

[tzanth]

So you support the creation of a new like "Proxy Serf" category for immigrants?

I mean, the US "needs" cheap labour because companies can save money by hiring people who don't need to be payed the minimum wage and don't need to be provided with a safe work environment or any of that "Worker's Rights" stuff.

Well, hopefully the increased transparency allowed for by easily acquirable medium-term work visas would allow for the better enforcement of labor laws etc.

[TerraPrime]

So you support the creation of a new like "Proxy Serf" category for immigrants?

I mean, the US "needs" cheap labour because companies can save money by hiring people who don't need to be payed the minimum wage and don't need to be provided with a safe work environment or any of that "Worker's Rights" stuff.

I suppose "proxy serf" is not an unfair label.

From my point of view, these workers are already working for sub-par wages with no workplace safety or insurance. But by main-lining them, we can actually regulate it more than before. OSHA can now do something if, say, the employer is trying to turn a larger profit by denying these workers the proper safeguards. Whereas, in the current situation, OSHA wouldn't be able to do anything.

I think whenever you make something illegal, it's doubly hard to protect people from being exploited. The same is true for sex workers, imo. They already exist, and they are already exploited. Giving them legal status can actually help reduce the exploitation.

In the U.S., it's uncommon that workers will get paid a fair wage. It's a matter of getting the least unfair deal there is. So, I'm not too heart-broken about one set of workers getting a raw deal.

[Shryke]

I suppose "proxy serf" is not an unfair label.

From my point of view, these workers are already working for sub-par wages with no workplace safety or insurance. But by main-lining them, we can actually regulate it more than before. OSHA can now do something if, say, the employer is trying to turn a larger profit by denying these workers the proper safeguards. Whereas, in the current situation, OSHA wouldn't be able to do anything.

I think whenever you make something illegal, it's doubly hard to protect people from being exploited. The same is true for sex workers, imo. They already exist, and they are already exploited. Giving them legal status can actually help reduce the exploitation.

In the U.S., it's uncommon that workers will get paid a fair wage. It's a matter of getting the least unfair deal there is. So, I'm not too heart-broken about one set of workers getting a raw deal.

Again, I'm not clear on wtf you are suggesting here.

The jobs for illegal immigrants exist because the companies who hire them won't pay the wages or provide the standards actual American citizens/legal immigrants/etc demand.

If you make these people legalized in some way and actually crack down on companies with too low wages and standards, then there's no point in the former-illegals in the first place because once you are paying enough and providing better standards, Americans will fill the jobs.

It already happens this way when the government actually cracks down on companies using lots of illegals.

It's not that illegals are taking jobs Americans won't do, it's that illegals are creating jobs Americans won't do.

[TerraPrime]

Again, I'm not clear on wtf you are suggesting here.

Funny, that if you don't understanding what I was saying, you still managed a pretty cohesive response. You're awesome! :thumbsup:

The jobs for illegal immigrants exist because the companies who hire them won't pay the wages or provide the standards actual American citizens/legal immigrants/etc demand.

I don't expect the employers will be paying short-term work VISA workers the same as they would for American citizens, because they wouldn't be paying things like social security for these foreign workers. So, they will still come cheaper than an American worker. It will assuredly not be as cheap as illegal workers are now, but it will not be the same as American workers, either.

If you make these people legalized in some way and actually crack down on companies with too low wages and standards, then there's no point in the former-illegals in the first place because once you are paying enough and providing better standards, Americans will fill the jobs.

We can set a different minimum wage level for these short-term work VISA workers.

It's not that illegals are taking jobs Americans won't do, it's that illegals are creating jobs Americans won't do.

True in some cases, but not all. Cucumbers still need to be harvested, and so do celery. Construction sites still need raw labor to haul and move stuff. Meat packing plants still need people willing to work there at the meat line.

[Shryke]

I don't expect the employers will be paying short-term work VISA workers the same as they would for American citizens, because they wouldn't be paying things like social security for these foreign workers. So, they will still come cheaper than an American worker. It will assuredly not be as cheap as illegal workers are now, but it will not be the same as American workers, either.

We can set a different minimum wage level for these short-term work VISA workers.

So you basically want to formalize the current illegal workers situation. Create a foreign serf class to work your fields for sub-human wages and then send them back home once you're done with them, essentially undercutting the entirety of the worker's rights movement in one blow.

True in some cases, but not all. Cucumbers still need to be harvested, and so do celery. Construction sites still need raw labor to haul and move stuff. Meat packing plants still need people willing to work there at the meat line.

No, I don't think you are getting it. These jobs exist now and will still exist if you got rid of every illegal working them. But the key thing here is that if you get rid of the illegals, these jobs will need to pay more and will attract Americans to work them. (Unless of course you create a sub-minimum-wage-lower-standard level of employment for foreigners. Something I personally find repugnant.)

[Sariel]

The American minimum wage is crazy as it is, and you want people to work for even less than that?

[Bad Idea]

We can set a different minimum wage level for these short-term work VISA workers.

Wow. :idea: Just... no.

[Shryke]

Republican Front-Runner to take Reid's seat in Nevada supports a currency-less barter system for Health Care:

"Let's change the system and talk about what the possibilities are. I'm telling you that this works. You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor. They would say I'll paint your house," she said. "[That's] what people would do to get health care with their doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people."

"I'm not backing down from that system," she added.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/lowden-doubles-down-on-health-care-by-barter.php

[Lightning Lord]

Republican Front-Runner to take Reid's seat in Nevada supports a currency-less barter system for Health Care:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/lowden-doubles-down-on-health-care-by-barter.php

I guess the poor people will be trading in their kids, or entering servitude? Excellent, about time we got back to the wealthy, educated folk in the village having official control of the serfs less well-off.