Immigration Reform

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Here is one article to check out. I am also trying to weed through Western Union’s financial statements to see the amount of money wired to Mexico just by them during 2012, but that 10k is a bit tedious, and I am a bit tired from working so late last night.

I will say 30% might have been a bit high, but 10-15% is a more real number. $100-150 billion a year.[/quote]

According to the link you posted it was $21.2 billion in 2009[/quote]

I thought that was just for one month. I am more tired than I thought.

To address the argument about Republicans needing amnesty to gain the Latino vote, history says otherwise…

“According to government statistics, only 3,710,000 Latinos voted in the Presidential Election of 1988, although their share of the electorate increased to about 7% of the national electorate. According to CBS / New York Times Exit Polls, Bush won 30.85% of the Hispanic nationwide vote, and Dukakis received 70.15% of the nationwide vote.”

So just 2 years after the 1986 amnesty, Latinos still largely voted Dem.

Latinos vote Dem because of their socio-economic status.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Here is one article to check out. I am also trying to weed through Western Union’s financial statements to see the amount of money wired to Mexico just by them during 2012, but that 10k is a bit tedious, and I am a bit tired from working so late last night.

I will say 30% might have been a bit high, but 10-15% is a more real number. $100-150 billion a year.[/quote]

According to the link you posted it was $21.2 billion in 2009[/quote]

I thought that was just for one month. I am more tired than I thought.
[/quote]

From the article

The transfers are second only to Mexicoâ??s oil industry in the amount of revenue produced, which is one of the chief reasons the Mexican government has no interest in working with U.S. authorities to police our common border.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I don’t know why we tolerate the illegals coming in for the “cheap labor”. We have a surplus of labor here. It’s called Welfare. We just don’t have the politcal will to be “mean” to people and tell them NO, grab a shovel and no more freebies. For now on, instead of Welfare, we will just give you a minimum wage job.[/quote]

Because we still have to pay them minimum wage and has access to workmans comp insurance. We can pay someone who is here illegally much less than that and they aren’t eligible for insurance.

We have a huge border so it’s going to be porous by its very nature. Why not just refuse anyone who can’t prove they are here legally access to services like schools? Why not go after the people who hire illegals? It seems to me that if you make the environment much less friendly to those who are here illegally that people would stop coming over. You can’t say “we’re going to have tighter immigration policies” while simultaneously letting them get away with being here and letting people hire them.

james

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I don’t know why we tolerate the illegals coming in for the “cheap labor”. We have a surplus of labor here. It’s called Welfare. We just don’t have the politcal will to be “mean” to people and tell them NO, grab a shovel and no more freebies. For now on, instead of Welfare, we will just give you a minimum wage job.[/quote]

Because we still have to pay them minimum wage and has access to workmans comp insurance. We can pay someone who is here illegally much less than that and they aren’t eligible for insurance.

We have a huge border so it’s going to be porous by its very nature. Why not just refuse anyone who can’t prove they are here legally access to services like schools? Why not go after the people who hire illegals? It seems to me that if you make the environment much less friendly to those who are here illegally that people would stop coming over. You can’t say “we’re going to have tighter immigration policies” while simultaneously letting them get away with being here and letting people hire them.

james[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

This isn’t an easy problem to fix. Let me run down my conditions to try and clear up my stance:

  1. No voting until completed the traditional citizenship process
    [/quote]

This is pretty lenient. Makes it more of a ‘long term investment’ for politicians looking to increase voting stock. Especially, considering the illegal stock probably came from a location known for bad leadership and social policies.

I think it should be granted along the same lines we grant it (back) to felons, at the state-level. That way, Arizona can keep illegal immigrants out of the voting booths potentially forever (if they want) and illegal immigrants can cast absentee ballots in Maine and Vermont (if they want).

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I don’t know why we tolerate the illegals coming in for the “cheap labor”. We have a surplus of labor here. It’s called Welfare. We just don’t have the politcal will to be “mean” to people and tell them NO, grab a shovel and no more freebies. For now on, instead of Welfare, we will just give you a minimum wage job.[/quote]

Because we still have to pay them minimum wage and has access to workmans comp insurance. We can pay someone who is here illegally much less than that and they aren’t eligible for insurance.

We have a huge border so it’s going to be porous by its very nature. Why not just refuse anyone who can’t prove they are here legally access to services like schools? Why not go after the people who hire illegals? It seems to me that if you make the environment much less friendly to those who are here illegally that people would stop coming over. You can’t say “we’re going to have tighter immigration policies” while simultaneously letting them get away with being here and letting people hire them.

james[/quote]

Well put sir.

Large fines on employers would be the best move IMO.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I don’t know why we tolerate the illegals coming in for the “cheap labor”. We have a surplus of labor here. It’s called Welfare. We just don’t have the politcal will to be “mean” to people and tell them NO, grab a shovel and no more freebies. For now on, instead of Welfare, we will just give you a minimum wage job.[/quote]

Or just get rid of minimum wage. If you don’t have or can’t keep a job you can leave, or starve.

Suddenly, $20/mo. would keep you fed. $100/mo. could keep a roof over your head and >$100,000/mo. would be a pointless waste of electrons and decimal places at best.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
I know that I’m getting old when I see awarding citizenship to criminals being argued for as “the right thing to do” – and passed.

That just doesn’t make any sense in the world that I grew up in…

Black is apparently now white, right is wrong, illegal is no longer a crime.[/quote]

Eh… I see both sides really. Point being, if these people are coming from a shithole country, it is almost as if they are refugees more than anything. And to be honest, the vast majority of countries aren’t’ as good as the US, even given its shortcomings.

I don’t have a problem with amnesty if certain conditions are in place, the main one being they aren’t allowed to vote until they complete the existing naturalization process.
[/quote]

And what about all those folks around the world who are languishing in some bad situation as their paperwork moves through the system, Beans? You’re ok with these criminals jumping ahead of them?

What motivation is there then to follow the rules? Cause I think I know you well enough to believe that you know that a system where large groups of people ignore the rules is bound to become a cluster fuck.

FTR, I think immigration is wonderful. 3 of my 4 grandparents came from Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Open the gates, as far as I’m concerned. But DON’T tear down the whole fence, and just let anybody who gets in become a citizen.

Hell, if I were Mexican and wanted to live in the US, I sure wouldn’t bother with following the law. I’d sneak in now and become a citizen real soon.[/quote]

This isn’t an easy problem to fix. Let me run down my conditions to try and clear up my stance:

  1. No voting until completed the traditional citizenship process
  2. Only crime on record is being here illegally.
  3. 104 hours of community service a year
  4. Amnesty is a temp proposition, and the amnesty card needs to be renewed a) annually if you don’t owe income taxes b) bi-annually if you do owe income taxes
  5. Not eligible for any (including tax credits) state assistance until traditional citizenship process is complete
  6. Place in line for traditional citizenship process is BEHIND anyone who didn’t stay in country illegally

I don’t bother to worry about enforcement or fences, because we all know that shit won’t ever happen from Washington.

And my intention is to only grant amnesty to those who would be productive members of society if given the chance, and ferret out the dregs that should just be sent home.

Common sense says you can’t just let anyone and everyone flood into the country whenever they please without some sort of order. Nor do I condone giving gifts to people who broke the law. But, I do see some flaws in the law.

I’m not as much pro-amnesty as I am pro “fix the current system”. So if we were to constrain those granted amnesty, the Dems looking to increase their voting stock would actually be okay with fixing the current system over gifts to criminals. [/quote]

As is typical for you, it’s clear you’ve put a lot of thought into this.

I have to say that, while it’s not perfect, I like what you’ve suggested.

Number 6 would be key to my support.[/quote]

THis sounds about right to me too.

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Business wants their cheap labor, everyday, all day, 24/7, no matter what foolish laws are passed. [/quote]

This is the key. But it’s not just business who wants their cheap labor. Whenever one of us shop at Walmart for our produce instead of your local farmer’s market or CoOp then you’re directly supporting this same cheap labor. Same goes for that chicken you (not you personally Max) buy from that same store. Demand for cheap produce and meat is going to drive the demand for cheap labor. And it doesn’t get cheaper than our illegal immigrant population.

Maybe the answer is to get a better worker program in place so that we can legally hire these same people.
james[/quote]

Yep. I think we need one.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I don’t know why we tolerate the illegals coming in for the “cheap labor”. We have a surplus of labor here. It’s called Welfare. We just don’t have the politcal will to be “mean” to people and tell them NO, grab a shovel and no more freebies. For now on, instead of Welfare, we will just give you a minimum wage job.[/quote]

Yep. I don’t mind giving someone who just got laid off a few months (6?) to get back on their feet. After that, depression will start to REALLY sink in. I’ve seen it. They SHOULD be put to work if they want to stay on welfare…at .8 times minimum wage as well.

Sure, there ARE people who need the safety net. They SHOULD be helped. But even here I’d like to see some form of work being done. Perhaps we can give small subsidies to companies who hire those who could not otherwise find work because of their low productivity, but who CAN do work.

…eh, I’m pretty far off on an immigration thread

Some other points:

  • We DON’T need a damn foreigner card and we should get rid of the requirement to always carry a green card. My buddy’s wife had been in the country for over 10 years (married 7 I think) before she naturalized. Technically, if she left her green card at home when she went for a jog she was breaking the law. I don’t mind necessitating paperwork. I do mind forcing otherwise law-abiding residents to constantly carry a “license.” …what do you think CHushin? Do you always carry the Gaijin card when you go jogging?

-We SHOULD 1) create a guest worker visa and 2) go after companies who purposefully hire illegal aliens, IN THAT ORDER. That way if a company needs a worker then can more easily (and legally) get one.

-We SHOULD staple a green card (or other sort of long-term visa) to the diplomas of the engineers, MBAs and other high-skilled laborers who graduate from our schools. Why we are now forcing folks to go home to start their business or create their inventions is beyond me.

okay, I’m done rambling for awhile.

Janet Napolitano named to head California’s UC college system…

The U.S. secretary of Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, is being named as the next president of the University of California system, in an unusual choice that brings a national-level politician to a position usually held by an academic, The Times has learned. Her appointment also means the 10-campus system will be headed by a woman for the first time in its 145-year history.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Janet Napolitano named to head California’s UC college system…

The U.S. secretary of Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, is being named as the next president of the University of California system, in an unusual choice that brings a national-level politician to a position usually held by an academic, The Times has learned. Her appointment also means the 10-campus system will be headed by a woman for the first time in its 145-year history.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uc-president-20130712,0,83979.story[/quote]

God help them…and I wonder who Obama will appoint?