U.S. Immigration Bill

[Zythryn]

Thanks for posting that Doug.

Racoon, does that fit your idea of a solution?

[DougF]

Thanks for posting that Doug.

Racoon, does that fit your idea of a solution?

Your welcome, like I said it's not a easy decision where to draw the LINE.

[Cedars]

cedars,

The slick marketing I mention is the labeling of the bill as 'amnesty'. The first thing that comes to my mind is 'unfair'. Upon researching, I found that it really is pretty fair & addresses the two foundational aspects of the problem.

Racoon even described the very bill he voted against when he described the solution!

 

am·nes·ty –noun

1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.

3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

–verb (used with object)

4. to grant amnesty to; pardon.

 

Currently, when you work illegally in the USA, that disqualifies you for x amount of years from eligiblity to apply for work (as I understand immigration law). What this bill would have done is provide amnesty for that offense. I do not see how the term "amnesty" was abused in this case.

 

In your mind what are the two foundational aspects of the problem?

[InfiniteNow]

Prove this statement.

Well, since you asked so nicely, and I did have emphasis in my degree about research design and statistical sampling, I'll point you to the following primers which call out several of the key points to which I alluded in my previous post:

 

The How and Why of Statisitical Sampling

II. Sampling Error and Statistical Significance

 

 

 

Is it really true that we're so busy defending our existing beliefs that we refuse to walk toward each other for mutual agreement?

[jackson33]

You know there are local problems which result from global problems, if you want to stop this illegal immigrants from Mexico did ever ask yourself why they leave Mexico in the first place? Mainly because the wealth is not distributed fairly in the world and that is a global problem. I could motivate more, but I guess you get my argument. Just one example: imagine that Europe would get more and more immigrants, eventually there would also be more and more Europeans emigrating...maybe to US...

 

Since the US, has one of the highest GDP's, one of the highest per capita income, and arguably is one of the finest places on earth to live out a human life; I suggest there are many reason why many people from around the World would want to be there. Legally about a million or so do immigrate to the US and for reason of partial participation several more million are granted periods of time for many other reasons. (Education/Diplomatic/Business..etc)

 

Unfortunately, there have to be limitations on just how many are granted legal status for a variety of reasons, primarily...STABILITY OF SYSTEM.

 

Each Nation, with a problem of incoming migration, are for a variety of reason and generally not the ideal of *International Socialism*, distribution of wealth.

Escaping radical governments, religious intolerance play just as large a role in Europe, as economics does in the US.

 

As a sovereign Nation in a World of Nations with different laws based on different principle and means to maintain them, the US cannot dictate what others do about domestic problems, which one is immigration.

[Cedars]

Well, since you asked so nicely, and I did have emphasis in my degree about research design and statistical sampling, I'll point you to the following primers which call out several of the key points to which I alluded in my previous post:

 

The How and Why of Statisitical Sampling

II. Sampling Error and Statistical Significance

 

Is it really true that we're so busy defending our existing beliefs that we refuse to walk toward each other for mutual agreement?

 

Nice slide but your links do not show one point where the questions asked of the American people in the polls about their opinion on the Amnesty for Illegals is flawed.

 

Second link is regarding sampling for the census rather than contact census of the Am. Population and totally unrelated to the immigration data.

 

My request was to prove this statement:

 

The numbers are inherently flawed by the framing of the questions and bias in the populations sampled.

[InfiniteNow]

My request was to prove this statement:

I thank you for the clarification, but am relatively certain I understood your request the first time. I considered this a potential rat hole, a cornucopia of likely tangents which would take us even further away from discussion real solutions.

 

If you truly wish to discuss that one sentence from that one post, please PM me and I will privately discuss with you the context and intent of my comment.

[Cedars]

I thank you for the clarification, but am relatively certain I understood your request the first time. I considered this a potential rat hole, a cornucopia of likely tangents which would take us even further away from discussion real solutions.

 

If you truly wish to discuss that one sentence from that one post, please PM me and I will privately discuss with you the context and intent of my comment.

 

If you are unwilling to verify a statement made by you within the context of this thread, then I would ask you not post such claims as:

 

"The numbers are inherently flawed by the framing of the questions and bias in the populations sampled."

 

If you do not feel you can discuss the issue publicly that is fine.

[InfiniteNow]

If you are unwilling to verify a statement made by you within the context of this thread, then I would ask you not post such claims as:

 

"The numbers are inherently flawed by the framing of the questions and bias in the populations sampled."

 

If you do not feel you can discuss the issue publicly that is fine.

 

Your tone reinforces why progress is so difficult.

 

 

My comment was that these polls taken by news agencies, by internet, and other methods are very frequently poor statistical samples. They would never be allowed into scientific literature because often the questions are worded ambiguously, the options presented do not serve as an accurate indicator of the spectrum of possible response. Also, the population sample is not often an accurate cross section of the country as a whole, and tends to over and under represent certain key groups. Additionally, those that vote tend to be the ones who feel strongly one or another, and since those in the middle of this spectrum tend less often to vote the results themselves are skewed.

 

So, this study, being no different from those others is victim to the same issues. Poorly framed questions, poorly framed response choices, and lack of adequate population sample.

 

Please now, enough of this rat hole. I hope the above will suffice, and ask again that you PM me if needed. Continued attacks on this point will lead us further away from consensus.

[Cedars]

Your tone reinforces why progress is so difficult.

 

My comment was that these polls taken by news agencies, by internet, and other methods are very frequently poor statistical samples. They would never be allowed into scientific literature because often the questions are worded ambiguously, the options presented do not serve as an accurate indicator of the spectrum of possible response. Also, the population sample is not often an accurate cross section of the country as a whole, and tends to over and under represent certain key groups. Additionally, those that vote tend to be the ones who feel strongly one or another, and since those in the middle of this spectrum tend less often to vote the results themselves are skewed.

 

So, this study, being no different from those others is victim to the same issues. Poorly framed questions, poorly framed response choices, and lack of adequate population sample.

 

Please now, enough of this rat hole. I hope the above will suffice, and ask again that you PM me if needed. Continued attacks on this point will lead us further away from consensus.

 

Fine. I have no problem putting this measure on the Ballot for people to vote on themselves.

 

Would the outcome of that convince you that Americans do not want this legislation?

[Erasmus00]

Fine. I have no problem putting this measure on the Ballot for people to vote on themselves.

 

Would the outcome of that convince you that Americans do not want this legislation?

 

Cedars, given that this measure is unlikely to show up on a nation wide ballot, I fail to see how this is at all persuasive. You contend that it would be voted down, others in this thread disagree. IF the people voted against it, it would demonstrate that Americans do not want this legislation.

 

However, one could just as easily say "Would the outcome of that convince that Americans DO want this legislation?" Bluster is easy with thought experiments.

-Will

[Cedars]

Cedars, given that this measure is unlikely to show up on a nation wide ballot, I fail to see how this is at all persuasive. You contend that it would be voted down, others in this thread disagree. IF the people voted against it, it would demonstrate that Americans do not want this legislation.

 

However, one could just as easily say "Would the outcome of that convince that Americans DO want this legislation?" Bluster is easy with thought experiments.

-Will

I am not afraid of putting this on a ballot regardless of the outcome. I dont think the polls in the field are jaded. I think they reflect the general opinion of the american people.

[DougF]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Fine. I have no problem putting this measure on the Ballot for people to vote on themselves.

 

Would the outcome of that convince you that Americans do not want this legislation?

 

Well it would be a tough vote at this time do to the fact that the Government can't even decide on what they want to put in the legislation! :cup: IMHO I think we should guard our borders better (check Id's and backgrounds would not be a bad thing) and we have all kinds of people come to the US on school & work visas now So no big dill, one of the problems I see with tightening our borders is that some friends of mine from Jolly Old England (who spend 10 months of the year here) would not be Abel to this anymore ( no one pays any attention to the English or the Canadians) this well sadden me. (the English have humor)

 

I found this link on Pros & Cons of Immigration Reform Plans, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act

you might find it insightful.

[Zythryn]

am·nes·ty –noun

1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.

2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.

3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.

–verb (used with object)

4. to grant amnesty to; pardon.

 

Currently, when you work illegally in the USA, that disqualifies you for x amount of years from eligiblity to apply for work (as I understand immigration law). What this bill would have done is provide amnesty for that offense. I do not see how the term "amnesty" was abused in this case.

 

Well, using the definition which you found and listed, the bill doesn't seem to fit any of those definitions. Yes, there is a change to the punishment, but no forgiveness or general pardon's given. A penalty still exists and what is more, a plan to impliment the penalties, of which we currently have almost none.

 

In your mind what are the two foundational aspects of the problem?

 

1. The borders need to be secure.

Any level of control or punishment of current illegals will have little effect if the borders remain unsecured.

 

2. What to do with the illegal immigrants that are already here.

 

I agree with Racoon regarding his solution:

 

The solution is to secure the Homeland by erecting physical barriers and using National Guard troops to secure them. We can't let the terrorists in..

Then we slowly disseminate who has already entered... and at 12+ million thats a daunting task.

 

Drug dealers, pedophiles, criminals , and other undesireables should be deported.

 

Those who are honest and working, with family, should have a chance to receive citizenship.

 

While the specific of using National Guard troops may not have been in the bill, the bill does seem to fit with Racoon's idea of a solution.

[CraigD]

Illegal entry into the US is certainly a politically divisive issue. I’m surprised by this, because my impression of Pres. G. W. Bush and his administration is that this is one of their areas of greatest strength, leading me to expect they would have success in working with Congress and state governments to implement significant immigration reform. The Bush position – which includes amnesty (which I don’t believe should be a “dirty word” in the political discussion) and incremental improvements in enforcement, focused on large employers of people in the US illegally –seems to me sensible and well-thought-out.

 

Some of the rhetoric around this issue – some of it even appearing in this thread – alarms me, smacking as it does of violent xenophobia. Such rhetoric typically asserts that a large fraction of people in the US illegally consume social welfare resources without contributing useful work, smuggle drugs, get into gang fights, are terrorists, and, in the most extreme rhetoric, are planning to seize control of US towns though armed revolution. This view supports the proposed solution that typically accompanies it – to respond to people attempting to illegally enter the US as one would an invasion by a poorly-armed army, with static (walls, fences, and moats) and dynamic (observers and patrols) military-style defenses.

 

IMHO, Such an view and approach fails to appreciate and address the most significant and addressable causes of Illegal entry: subsistence-level economics, and employment practices.

 

By far, the greatest single motivating factor underlying illegal entry is the lack of adequate wages in Mexico (and other Central and South American countries, as well as smaller numbers of people from other poor countries), and the presence of them in the US, primarily in agriculture, manufacturing, and services. By working long hours at low-paying jobs, and minimizing living expenses, people are able to send surprising large amounts of money to their families in their original countries, or save money for their own return, where cost of living lower than in the US further multiples its buying-power. This condition is caused by poor countries’ failures to match the US’s economic success, and by US employers who minimize their labor costs by employing these people for much less in wages and benefits than similar numbers of US citizen would agree to. This cost reduction results in higher profits for the employers, and lower costs to the consumer, especially for food products.

 

IMHO, of the 3 overlapping groups – consumers, people in the US illegally, and owners and investors of the companies that employ them – the latter benefits most from this situation. It is on this group, then, that I believe the greatest legislative, police, and judicial attention should be focused. Although many companies that routinely employ workers without assuring that they are legal US residents are large and well-respected, they appear to me to be doing business little differently than obviously criminal organizations such as stolen goods fencers, and depend much on the same criminal social dynamic: just as a stolen goods fencer is protected from discovery by the police because thieves profit from their relationship with them, and rightfully fear that informing the police of their activities would result in their arrest, prosecution, and punishment more than that of the fencer, illegal workers don’t want to lose their wages, and almost certainly will be more strongly punished (with arrest and deportment) than their employers.

 

Troubling as this criminal dynamic is, it is essentially humane, employers and workers usually treating one another with a reasonable degree of civility and respect. Far worse, because of their reluctance to seek police protection, people in the US illegally are unusually vulnerable to property and violent crimes. In reaction, they are prone to using violence to defend themselves, or to prey on each other, and may band together into violent gangs and become involved in other criminal activities, from prostitution to theft to drug smuggling to illegal gun dealing.

 

In some cases – presumably a small fraction of all illegal entries in to the US, though precise estimates of the incidence of such things are difficult to make – Mexicans and other foreign nationals are smuggled into the US with the promise of high wages, then confined and forced under threat of death to themselves or their families back home to work for nothing. I’m optimistic that, except when compromised by internal corruption, US law enforcement and social welfare agencies are aware of such abuses, and try hard to stop the worst of them.

 

After all my rhetoric of a more left-wing kind, I find my conclusions agreeing on several points with those who’s rhetoric I started out criticizing. As many people subjected to the worst victimization are brought into the US literally by the truckload, improved border security would reduce these most severe crimes. By requiring employers to follow state and federal minimum wage laws, and by removing exceptions to these laws for agricultural workers, more underemployed US citizens would find employment in jobs currently often filled by illegal workers. However, laws and policies must, I believe, go beyond this in two ways: more effectively detecting and more severely punishing companies that violate minimum wage laws, so that the practice causes them to suffer financially compared to law-abiding companies; and increasing the effective incomes of Mexicans and people of other nations from which many people enter the US illegally, eliminating their motivation for seeking US jobs.

 

The drawback to my (by no means original) proposals is that the cost of goods produced with sub-minimum wage labor in the US, and even lower effective wage income in other countries, would almost certainly increase, especially the cost of food. Because much of the economic strength of the US is due to the accumulation of wealth by people with lower incomes who are able to minimize their living expenses, such an increase could have a profound effect on the US and world economy. Therefore, I support a policy of gradually implementing the changes I propose, and carefully monitoring and regulating the economy to prevent unnecessary stress to it. As these changes involve countries other than the US, the cooperation of many countries is necessary.

[Cedars]

Well, using the definition which you found and listed, the bill doesn't seem to fit any of those definitions. Yes, there is a change to the punishment, but no forgiveness or general pardon's given. A penalty still exists and what is more, a plan to impliment the penalties, of

which we currently have almost none.

 

As I stated, under current law if you work illegally in the USA you do not qualify for work here under legal status for x-amount of years. That is negated under that proposed law and is in effect an amnesty, or possibly a fraud. How is someone who is working here illegally going to pay $4000 dollars to get right? A loan from the bank? A front on their paycheck from the very employer who shouldnt have hired them in the first place? How long do you think it will be before this hits the courts and is ruled unconstitutional because its not going to be applied equally to all guest workers, only those who came here illegally so they can stay. Wheres the due process?

 

Additionally, where are the penalties for those employers who have broken the laws by employing these persons, have violated labor laws and minimum wage laws, etc. I have to assume they are given an amnesty on past transgressions and will only be held accountable to the new standard, once the 'employment qualification database' (which doesnt exist) is online.

 

1. The borders need to be secure.

Any level of control or punishment of current illegals will have little effect if the borders remain unsecured.

 

Agreed. I have no problem with and have believed for many years the influx of illegals across the border should be stopped.

 

2. What to do with the illegal immigrants that are already here.

 

I agree with Racoon regarding his solution:

 

While the specific of using National Guard troops may not have been in the bill, the bill does seem to fit with Racoon's idea of a solution.

 

And here we part ways. Send the illegals back to their country of origin.

 

Increase the enforcement such as we saw with the Swift packing plants across multiple states earlier this year. After the Swift raid in Colorado, hundreds of legal citizens applied for the opened jobs.

 

I strongly disagree with rewarding illegal behaviors both on the employer part as well as the aliens who refused to go thru the system and come here legally.

[Cedars]

 

I found this link on Pros & Cons of Immigration Reform Plans, Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act

you might find it insightful.

 

Being as the article was within the pages of usliberals, I guess I have to keep in mind their idea of a positive might not be my idea of a positive. Example:

 

Pros

The overriding positive of S.1348, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, is that it provides an earned path to legal residency for the 12 to 15 million immigrants illegally present in the in U.S. before 2007.

 

12 - 15 million immigrants is not my idea of a good thing.

 

Con:

 

Guest Worker Program

 

S.1348 sets a guest worker program for low-skilled labor that creates a separate class of workers with few protections granted to other U.S. workers and little hope for permanent residency.

 

The above con will be rejected as unconstitutional by the first court it hits, in my humble opinion. The cascading effect of this will negate any of the alleged protections the legislation parades as a positive. I have no doubt that the "they wont be entitled to social services under this legislation" will be even faster to be negated. Equal protection clauses and all...

 

Thankfully the legislation failed.

 

But I did find an interesting link via this article:

 

US Illegal Immigration Explained - Profits and Poverty, Social Security and Starvation

 

I did not know that Mexico is number 4 for billionaires.

 

"Mexico's massive privatizations in 1994-95 also created a new privileged class of home-grown millionaires and billionaires. As of 2002, Mexico ranked fourth in the world in billionaires, behind the US, Japan and Germany."

 

We need to send these illegals home. Mexico needs to take better care of its own.