Full Senate to Take Up Immigration Debate

Good. It never made much sense to drag illegals of this magnitude off to Halliburton constructed internment camps. And there are just not enough folk in the USA who want to work for minimum wage or just above at bottom level labor in the service sector. Facts are facts.

If they criminalized illegal ("migrant") workers to the extent they wanted to, two huge problems would occur. First, the agricultural industry would take a huge hit; we need the labor they provide at the price they charge. Second, the criminal justice system would collapse because of the huge burden placed on it by the new felony charges. If the second thing didn't happen, it'd be another law not followed.

I find this better than what some isolationists/protectionists wanted.

To James: There's also the unappetizing prospect of raising taxes to pay to house 12 million new federal prisoners. The right-wing ideologues like Tancredo who are behind this bill are playing a very dangerous political game, and it's up to the Republicans to neutralize these extremists--for that is what they are--and make sure they don't gain more influence within the Republican Party.

More generally, I'd like to see comprehensive immigration reform with a basis in reality, myself. Clearly, people shouldn't be coming here illegally. The reason they do is that there is no lawful option for most of them to immigrate. Creating a system in which people live here permanently illegally, or without rights, or without the possibility of attaining citizenship creates a society with two permanent tiers. That is not acceptable at all, and should not be to any American who holds to the basic meritocratic ideals of our country.

Quercus, I very much agree.

This was the first article I read about the decision, and I was a bit confused. First I listened to the president saying that no one should cut in line. And I agreed. But then there's this line:

The most controversial provision would permit illegal aliens currently in the country to apply for citizenship without first having to return home, a process that would take at least six years or more. They would have to pay a fine, learn English, study American civics, demonstrate they had paid their taxes and take their place behind other applicants for citizenship, according to aides to Kennedy.

So they specifically took the teeth out of the "cutting in line" argument. Yet that's what the president chose to attack. Does he think people don't read? Is he right?

"Illegal" migration is a problem that doesn't need a new solution, we just need to understand what the problems are.

I believe a person (citizen or alien) has the right to go where they please as long as it isn't private property. Before our laws catered to the lazy and irresponsible (such as must-server hospital requirements, welfare and all sorts of public handouts), the immigrants that came to this country were top notch -- they knew they'd have to work hard to succeed, and many did. Now we see immigrants coming for the free lunch.

Going back to bringing in quality workers means revoking the federal welfare programs entirely, and also returning private property rights. The only way someone can come over to this country is if they're invited by someone with property, otherwise where would they go?

Now we just have more laws to cloud the situation, making it harder to pinpoint one law to blame when they're all at fault.

must-server[sic] hospital requirements

I'd debate you on the grey areas of social programs such as welfare, but you just went and said you don't think a hospital needs to help anyone that can't pay for it. Are you advocating for a child whose appendix bursts to slowly die outside the hospital if they don't have the cash?

Sure, you save a few bucks, but - are you really serious?

Here's the problem:

The New Deal basically nationalized the unions by relying on the immigration restriction act of 1924 to block "scabs" (immigrants) from crossing the "picket line" (border). The structure worked reasonably well compared to the great depression and some help from WW II made it possible to continue a kind of military-industrial kiting scheme to keep families from being destroyed.

Now however the foundation of the New Deal has been destroyed by the open borders policies serving employers and the New Deal is broken.

This will _not— work itself out.

Most of the folk at the trough I've seen in years gone by were not illegals but meth users or the like who found a way to not work. Most of the illegals I've known work hard and do the jobs the average US caucasian doesn't want to do, like clean hotel rooms, toilets, etc. I live in a gambling/hospitality state and they aren't taking away jobs that anyone wants.

Denying them healthcare? Well, having worked in the healthcare field around here, the Hispanics I know come in weekly with cash to pay their medical bills. Luckily most physicians work with them. That's more than I can say for alot of "legals".

On the speaking English part, heck yeah. That should still be a requirement of citizenship. My mother is German and she had to be able to pass the citizenship test in ENGLISH. The standard should not change.

As with the war on drugs, people are ignoring the problem of American demand, and fixating on Mexican supply. Of course, it's easier to demonize others than to look at your own failings. If you want to stop illegal immigration, you need to put pressure on people here with something to lose. That would be the businesses that hire them.

There are entire industries whose business model is premised on having incredibly cheap labor costs that, realistically speaking, can only be met one way. If you actually prosecuted businesses for hiring them, and imposed punishments with a real bite meant to punish and deter similar future conduct, you'd see a fall off in demand for their work very fast.

And people would be less likely to come. But we must also address the very real fact that there is an economic demand for labor, and no legal means for people to immigrate to supply it. There has to be a way to balance the legitimate need of business for labor and the need, for people to obey the law. While there is something to be said for obeying even stupid, unwise laws, it's inexcusable in government to make bad laws based on unrealistic views of the situation.