New Immigration Bill has provisions to grant legal status to the 12 million

[L. Coyote]

What do DUers think about provisions to grant legal status to the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country?
I have concerns about immigration reform further eroding constitutional equal rights in the United States.

Are you concerned about the number of workers who have no right to vote, or who will not have a right to vote for many years to come?

Are you concerned about the creation of a new, non-voting class of workers, a temporary worker class, and how this impacts political equilibrium?

Are you concerned about the Republicans using the immigration bill as an extension of their programs to disenfranchise Dem supporting minorities?

============================================
Bush Continues Push for New Immigration Bill
By Jonathan Weisman and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 15, 2007; 11:24 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061500843.html?hpid=topnews

President Bush today pressed his campaign for a new comprehensive immigration bill, telling an audience of Latino religious leaders that "our economy depends on" foreign workers and calling on Congress to act now before the problem of illegal immigration "grows worse."

Bush made the remarks at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in Washington after Senate leaders, under pressure from pro-immigration groups and the White House, agreed last night to bring a controversial overhaul of the nation's immigration laws back to the Senate floor as early as next week.

The bipartisan negotiators working on the immigration bill whittled hundreds of amendments down to a package of 11 amendments from Republicans and another 11 from Democrats and then presented their compromise to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (Miss.) indicated earlier that he could produce enough GOP votes to clear the 60-vote threshold to get the bill back to the floor and push it to a final vote.

With Reid's demands satisfied, he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a terse statement .....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. The Dems should be fighting for complete amnesty.

[Madspirit]

15. I support Complete Amnesty also

I'm a Texan. I have illegal friends. They are here anyway and are not going anywhere. Let's make them legal.
Lee

[L. Coyote]

24. If they are not allowed to work illegally, they will go somewhere else, not?

Why should foreign criminals be given amnesty and be allowed to live in the United States? Because it benefits business?
Should American criminals be treated equally under the law, and get amnesty for their crimes?

[Madspirit]

25. blabity blabity blah

They are ONLY criminals because of their status as illegal immigrants. That's not the same as being REAL criminals and it's a Catch-22 and quit talking about my friends like they aren't even people. I WILL hide them, protect them at whatever cost to me.

Lee

[L. Coyote]

30. Hello. It is a crime to enter the United States without a visa.

Illegal migrants are criminals. They knowingly and willfully violated the laws of the United States. That should not be rewarded in any way whatsoever.

[Telly Savalas]

32. Nearly half of the population of the U.S. has knowingly violated marijuana laws

but the self-styled disciples of The Law almost never express any outrage about this.

[Jim Warren]

36. So if I follow that logic

If I'm having a hard time feeding my family it would be OK to swing by your place and clean you out when you're not there?

[Critters2]

89. Do I hear crickets? nt

[Telly Savalas]

120. You're moving the goalposts.

Your new argument is predicated on the presence of immigrants, not on their legality, so the issue of legality is beside the point.

Anyway that's a bullshit analogy, and you Nativists know it.

[Jim Warren]

136. Of course it.s bullshit

and was meant to be as it mirrors your original supposition.

Perhaps you missed that when you were stooping to find an appropriate name to hurl my way.

[L. Coyote]

150. U: "and you Nativists know it." Isn't name calling is the last resort of failed argumentation.

[Jim Warren]

35. blabity blabity blah

Well, you can't say you are not getting cogent responses.:rofl:

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. It's a civil offense

It's no more of a crime than running a stop sign.

[Jim Warren]

38. As is treason........nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

39. It's more than a stretch to compare treeason

to crossing the border without papers. :eyes:

[Critters2]

90. I don't think so.

Besides, by the time they start looking for work, somehow, magically, they HAVE papers. Which means they've committed another crime.

[LanternWaste]

144. You're right!

You're right! I'll handcuff and take my girlfriend to INS as soon as I leave work today. And henceforth, she will not recieve anymore of my "rewards".

I've failed to be a good American by dating her, falling for her and taking her out for dinners-- 'cause God knows a "good" American would make sure that imaginary red and black lines on a map take a higher priority than "them"

[Freddie Stubbs]

149. Actually, it is not a crime

It is a civil violation.

[dkofos]

67. Harboring criminals is illegal also. I guess a little jail time won't hurt you.

[pingzing58]

107. Yea, but Madspirit won't go to hell for not helping the least as you will...

[Jim Warren]

110. What? Oh...... that's right

It's Sunday morning and Sunday School has started. :eyes:

[pingzing58]

111. lol

[dkofos]

114. Don't believe in hell.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[mema42]

115. undercriminalization too

In what cases of crimes committed should a person be barred from legal status or citizenship? Are there any your view?

The desire to bar foreign criminals from being given amnesty to benefit business brings on a charge of a Repug in sheeps clothing.

If your view is we should not bar anyone no matter what crimes, then I suggest we have an even bigger reason then our security to put up a fence. That way we can keep the worlds criminals in here and maybe the rest of the world can find the way to peace once they have the criminals all walled in here. That should take care of the problem of over crowded prisons, we won't bother, we'll just let the whole country be a prison.

[L. Coyote]

134. You raise an important question and issue.

When a nation controls immigration, by not allowing illegal labor and allowing legal migration, there is a control and selection of who constitutes the members of a society. When illegal immigration is tolerated de facto, what happened is the society became composed of an ever larger numbers of people who do not respect the laws working for profiteers who also do not obey the laws. Are we going to reward both of these groups?

If we are to add more workers to the membership of our society, there are a lot of law abiding, skilled, educated people we could choose from, in Mexico and elsewhere. There should be some criteria of who is an acceptable person to grant a workers visa to. Violation of our laws can certainly be a disqualifier, given it is our choice and we have other options.

[mema42]

73. read the post

Notice that the original post was talking about them not having the right to vote? This isn't about the right to work.
It is should they get the right to vote.

They can wait for citizenship, but if you want it that way, go push it with the party.

Immigrants do not get the right to vote in this country according to the constitution until they are naturalized.

The right to vote in federal elections is a right of citizenship.

[Anaxamander]

78. So because you've got some illegal buddies,

we should grant blanket amnesty to everyone? I have a cousin who stole a car one time and I felt bad for him. Does that mean we should eliminate the crime of grand theft auto?

[TahitiNut]

50. Then what??? What is to be done with the NEXT TWELVE MILLION?

(Sheesh!) :eyes:

Over ten million Americans have been forced out of the working class in the last seven years. Wages at the bottom have declined in real terms. We have huge numbers of "non-immigrant" people imported for their labor alone in the form of "guest workers" and H-1B (and other) visas. Income from the labor of others is taxed at HALF the rate as income from one's own labor! We are creating a plantation economy where the "owners" collect the gold and the workers get the shaft.

The world is FULL of despotic regimes in countries with huge numbers of impoverished people ... and transprotation makes us get closer and closer. At the same time, our politicians are working to destabilize "leftist" governments whereever they arise, whether in Chile, Haiti, Mexico, or Venezuela.

[pampango]

51. Keep out the Irish! Keep out the Chinese! Keep out the Mexicans!

Hey, who are you calling "nativist"? :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

52. Got nothing, huh?

:shrug: Figures. Just resort to baseless smears. :eyes:

Just call those who wished to stop the slave ships as being "anti-black"!! Free those already here and bring in more!! What fucking bullshit!

Read http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/paul_krugman_th_1.html

[pampango]

57. Didn't know the Irish and Chinese came over on slave ships, too.

As far as I know they came to the US voluntarily, so they were probably glad that no one stopped the "slave ship" that they were on.

Just checking to see if it was just the Mexicans now that you wanted to keep out, or whether you felt the same way about the Chinese and the Irish. Guess the "slave ship" designation answers that question.

That's all I've got.

[TahitiNut]

59. I guess you don't give a shit about the Irish-Americans, Chinese-Americans, ...

... and other "hyphenated Americans" and legal immigrant minorities who're here and have invested, often for generations, in making this nation better for all. Nope. Fuck them. After all, we can get more cheap labor where THEY came from, right? No skin off your nose. And who the fuck cares whether the "undocumented workers" even give a shit about settling down and, with their immediate families, actually becoming citizens of this nation ... it's ONLY about being able to exploit their cheap labor.

Every 10 or 20 years, in a misguided, perverted orgasm of compassion and benevolence, just sprinkle them all with the holy water of amnesty and then keep on truckin' ... because there are a lot more where they came from and even if they become citizens we can just drive their pay down by getting more and more cheap labor, right? It's endless! Ouroboros! (And the rich get richer and the working class gets FUCKED. But that's OK if YOU get YOURS, right?))

No matter how many times someone tells you it's about halting the exploitation of cheap labor and NOT about race and that it's the oppressed (most often minorities) working class who're the ones most injured just keep on SMEARING people and flinging the same old shit.

What a totally bullshit posture! It's just another kind of exploitation for some superficial feel-good self-righteousness ... and does absolutely nothing to stop the rape of human beings for cheap labor.

[L. Coyote]

60. focus? And remember, the "illegal migrants" came here over 10,000 years ago!!

[pampango]

64. My point was not that you were a racist.

As you will note, I said that you might have opposed the immigration of Chinese and Irish in earlier times. As far as I know the Irish are as white as the whitest American, so I am not sure where you think my charges of racism come from.

Quite plainly I do not think you are a racist, but I think a good case could be made, from what I have heard, that you are a nativist.

One thing I do agree with you about. Our past immigrants, legal, illegal, and those who came before there were any immigration laws, have worked to make this a better nation for all. I have no reason to believe that Hispanic immigrants won't do the same. A generation or two from now we may be saying the same thing about their contributions to our country.

[TahitiNut]

75. I support LEGAL immigration.

As a Viet Nam veteran, I was a vocal proponent of legal immigration for the Vietnamese boat people even before Joan Baez was!

We really didn't have very much in the way of immigration laws until the 20th century because we were a frontier. A continent on which only a few million people lived is one helluva lot different than a continent on which over 600,000,000 people live, particularly when it was nothing but colonial and migratory peoples.

Hell ... taken to the ridiculous extreme, human beings should have never left East Africa!

Not that my PERSONAL 'accident of birth' is at all relevant, but ... My maternal grandparents and granduncles and grandaunt all immigrated during WW1 from Norway. On my father's side, my ancestors immigrated in the 17th century from Scotland and England - which was legal when we part of the British Empire. I was engaged to a Japanese immigrant, who was in the process of getting a green card.

National boundaries and national territorial sovereignty is an outgrowth of agriculturalism; hunter/gatherers and aboriginal peoples had no such legal construct - just like there was no concept of "owning" land or having "titles" to land. It was solely a matter of 'might makes right' and migration and conquest is what made it (de facto) legal. So the crapola of rhetorically recasting history in present day terms that don't apply is mere shit-flinging in these discussions and have no basis in either ethics or law.

But there's a HUGE difference between legal immigration for people who seek to help build a free and democratic nation through ALL KINDS of participation, including public service and political activism, and people who merely want a slice of the money pie to send home to their families. I have a silly notion that we are best served by a common wealth where we work together and share the burdens of national service for the good of the community. I tend to want to deal with the WHOLE person ... not just their utility as some beast of burden: a laborer.

I want a working class that's enfranchised and has a vested interest in building a more democratic and equitable nation ... for themselves and for succeeding generations. I don't believe in looking over the fence at my neighbor's yard and, seeing their "greener grass," deciding I'll just have my picnic there instead of the mud hole I've let my own yard become. I don't know of another country on the face of the planet, not Mexico, not Canada, not Colombia, not Brazil, not France, not England, and CERTAINLY not Tahiti(!) that has accommodated immigrants of all colors from other nations as much as the United States. But I strongly believe that NO IMMIGRATION LAWS will EVER be satisfactory if they're NOT ENFORCED. Without matching the de facto immigration laws to the de jure immigrations laws, it doesn't make a fucking difference what Congress does. And as long as that's the case, we can NEVER realize a democratic nation with any kind of equity whatsoever. Without territorial sovereignty, we're truly and deeply fucked.


So ... I believe that ANY 'solution' requires (1) enforcing the law, no matter WHAT the law is, (2) making sure that se serve the interests of people, NOT CORPORATIONS, in enacting such laws, (3) dealing with employers who DELIBERATELY and extensively exploit illegal aliens, (4) enforcing national borders WITHOUT building walls, (5) reversing a foreign policy which, for over 100 years, has impeded and opposed the democratization/liberalization of the governments of Latin America nations as well as other nations, including the hugely corrupt attempts to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba, and the 'leftist' movements in Mexico, Chile, Nicaragua, Pakistan, and ... the list seems endless.

I OPPOSE virtually all forms of "Work Visa" ... particularly "guest worker" programs and the perverted and corrupted H-1B visa programs. I steadfastly support strong LIMITS on such programs. Why? Because I do not believe that a disenfranchised working class is at all healthy - it's economic and political suicide for the majority of citizens. WORKING TOGETHER means valuing the contributions to ones' own nation by one's neighbors and fellow citizens. It's basic participation - participation in governance and participation in working in the economy that assures a democracy survives. When we become an "ownership society" we've returned to FEUDALISM and democracy is DEAD.

[Blue_Tires]

95. good points there

that post should be e-mailed to someone in the senate that would actually read it

[TahitiNut]

96. Thanks. Appreciate it.

I get the distinct impression that far too many are talking AT one another rather than TO one another ... and missing a most basic fact:
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference what the laws are if we don't enforce them the way we agree to write them. Letting autocratic 'special interests' write them AND choose where and when and whether to enforce them is a return to rule by despots in an autocracy rather than the "rule of law" in a democracy.

I think the reason so many make 'immigration' comparisons to the days before a democratic nation ever even existed on the planet is because we've stopped acting like a democracy. No fucking wonder there's almost no relationship between what we want our laws to accomplish and what's actually happening. When people talk about how we were 'illegal immigrants' when we came to North America and took over from the aboriginal people they seem to miss the basic fact that we weren't a democracy then! Fer krissakes! Who the hell ever claimed monarchies did what most people wanted? Attempting to smear members of a democracy today for what a past monarchy did is sheer shit-flinging insanity. (On this subject, I find just as much abject idiocy on DU as I'd find on FR.)

[Jim Warren]

100. Kudos

on the above string; from recall I think they are #s 50, 59, 75, without looking back.
They are the best put together group of post on the subject I've seen here in a while.

[TahitiNut]

101. I really appreciate your generosity. Even when I reread 'em I still feel I'm falling short.

I've seen so much shit-flinging idiocy on this particular topic, that I'm beginning to doubt that any ethical and equitable progress can be made in this area. I despair that we're further abandoning our sovereignty and entitlement to democratic self-governance in dealing the multitude of seductions on this single complex issue.

One of the examples of shit-flinging is the allegation that there's some alleged bigotry in referring these people as "illegal aliens" - as though that term somehow dehumanizes them or indicates some kind of hatred for them. Almost nothing could be further from the truth. I have traveled somewhat extensively to other countries (as an ALIEN) and met people everywhere whom I've mutually loved and respected. Including Tahiti. I show that respect by complying with their laws the best I know how. I expect the same in return. People I love and respect have broken the law - and that did not stop me from loving and respecting them. I don't have to hate someone to say they're breaking the law and disrespecting my nation by ignoring its laws. Hell, I even felt respect and deep compassion for the wounded NVA (teen-aged) soldiers we captured back on February 24, 1969. I never stooped to dehumanizing them, no matter how seductive it might have been to do so. At the same time, I knew they were trying to kill me and I was trying to kill them. The utter insanity of war is something I've known. To have people claim that I'm somehow dehumanizing someone by referring to them as an 'illegal alien' is a kind of hostility and insanity that leads to wars - a mentality that reason can only rarely touch.

Nobody should be above the law - but EVERY citizen should take part in forming our laws and complying with them. Abandoning both participation in forming those laws and enforcing and complying with them is the DEATH of democratic self-governance. Without national sovereignty there is nothing upon which to base such self-governance. Nothing. That nihilism is a detestable social attitude. It's sociopathic, imho.

[L. Coyote]

102. U: "EVERY citizen should take part in forming our laws and complying with them."

Keyword "citizen" instead of member. Provisions of the proposed legislation delay the ability to become a citizen, pushing it back and creating hurdles for this group, such that they cannot take part in forming laws. Yet, we expect them to comply with the laws, of course.

Somehow, there is a contradiction in all the debate, I'm sure you have noticed. On one side is the discussion of how necessary the workers are to the economy. On the other side is the effort to keep them disenfranchised, even when legally recognized. The past history, condoning illegal workers by lax laws and lax enforcement, was a form of disenfranchisement compared to what a program of bringing workers legally on the normal path to citizenship. Many would have voted for Gore in Florida in 2000, for example.

But now, there is an effort to "legalize" these workers and at the same time to keep them in a separate class as long as possible if not forever, that being non-voters.

[TahitiNut]

103. The economy should serve the people, NOT vice versa.

It's a fraudulent meme to claim "workers are necessary to the economy." That's like saying the plantation needs slaves, imho. It OBJECTIFIES human beings - treats us as a means to an end instead of an end in ourselves. That's grossly unethical.

I subscribe to another formulation: Our national economy should be the result of our equitable participation, as workers, in BUILDING that economy. It's a "Do It Yourself" thing. Too many people want to eat the fruits without growing or picking the fruit. That's NOT equitable!

Again, read http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/03/paul_krugman_th_1.html


Citizenship is an entitlement - political self-determination is a human right. There is no 'right' to demand citizenship in another nation. None! Absolutely nowhere and never has that ever been a right. One nation, Israel, grants an entitlement to a certain class of people to become citizens. I do NOT apologize for not wishing to emulate Israel, so I won't say "sorry."

[L. Coyote]

104. I see we criticize the same side of the contradiction. Where is your response to

the voting issue. Are you saying "tough luck" because there is no right to demand citizenship, or are you skirting the issue? I'm not the enemy here. I'm criticizing the Rs and the plantation owners who want non-voting slaves.

It is not an issue of illegals demanding citizenship. The question is. "What should the legislation do?" Should it have a path to voting for those the Rs say "are necessary to the economy" but at the same time want to prevent from voting for as long as possible, if not forever.

What do YOU favor, a path to full participation in democracy, or a sub-class of non-voters? Simple question posed by the OP, albeit restated.

[TahitiNut]

122. As I've tried to make clear (and apparently failed), we must ENFORCE and COMPLY with

... immigration laws BEFORE we do anything else. Unless and until we get real about making the laws and our behavior CONGRUENT (i.e. make the de facto virtually identical with the de jure) it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to shrug our shoulders and pretend that people currently breaking the law are now OK.

So, I do not support ANY amnesty provision or "path to citizenship" for ANYONE ... YET. (Please don't insult me by launching into the "you can't round 'em up and..." stuff. I lose my patience when folks make overtly straw man 'arguments.')

We not only have a class of non-voting, non-participating human beings being exploited and objectified "illegally" for their labor (i.e. "undocumented workers") as a subset of those called "illegal aliens," we also have a class of non-voting, non-participating human beings being exploited and objectified "legally" for their labor. They're the "guest workers" and other "work visa" (e..g. H-1B) workers.

As a side note, while I oppose trafficking in human labor (even under color of law), I have no objection to giving priority in IMMIGRATION to those people (and their immediate families: spouse and children only) with skills and abilities we regard as beneficial to our nation - providing that they seek full and complete participation, as citizens, in all manner of activities of citizenship - including unreserved support for the Constitution and a democratic form of government. I feel absolutely no obligation whatsoever to permit immigration of people opposed to the basic tenets of a free society. Fascists need not apply. Monarchists need not apply.

It's my firm stance that ANYONE being treated as cattle - beasts of burden - human beings used SOLELY for the labor - is anathema to a democracy. Work is how citizens participate in building an economy - a nation. That's the dog. 'Ownership' is the TAIL!. When we let the tail wag the dog we're fucked. I don't really know how much more clearly I can say it - trafficking in human labor, even in making it "legal" - is the path toward FEUDALISM.

Please note that I'm also steadfastly opposed to disenfranchising ex-felons. Once a person's term of punishment for a crime (except treason) is completed, their voting rights MUST be restored. Again, the principle I adhere to is that working people MUST be fully enfranchised. A disenfranchised person USED for their labor is antithetical to the principles of a democracy, imho. A democracy REQUIRES full participation - in governance, in public service, in voting, and in political activism. Labor is at the very core of this and subordinating labor to anything else is a perversion of human rights and civil liberties. Labor MUST be superior to 'ownership' since, without labor, the value of anything 'owned' is absolutely NOTHING.

If, in order to ENFORCE laws regarding the employment/exploitation/enslavement of illegal aliens, we require evidence to make a case against companies with deliberate programs to violate those laws, it may be appropriate to grant amnesty on an individual basis (NOT a blanket basis) in return for cooperation in prosecuting the most egregious abuses. Thus, I'd take blanket amnesty (or "path to citizenship") off the table until we achieve the necessary first step of aligning our behavior with our laws.

[L. Coyote]

131. ABSOLUTELY, nd very well-stated. And, yes, let's get evidence on the employers

from the illegally employed, so we can recover the taxes, etc. and punish the criminals illegally hiring workers.

[Jim Warren]

105. Again........IMHO........spot on.

You mentioned in a post above "On this subject, I find just as much abject idiocy on DU as I'd find on FR".

As do I, and so I'd guess that moves us along the knee jerk scale from what? racist? xenophobes? to now nativist? How about neo-nativists? BS.

If anything does, it is this knee jerk component that is often the most distasteful, and libs and progs fall for it as much as anyone as common sense is lost to dogma.

So be it.

I am a lifelong Democrat, having lived a pretty long life already. I come from a family of old school Dems, workingman people, strong union supporters. My grandfather paid the price, had his head cracked by hired thugs for organizing, my dad was a union shop steward and had to be a leader when no one else wanted to be. He too paid a heavy price bringing that job home with him. Many have forgotten the hard work and heartache gone before: 40 hour workweek, safer working conditions, benefit plans, a chance at a living wage.

The immigration debate is close to home for me, closer than for many here I'd venture a guess. The easiest way for me to talk with someone who is opposed to illegal immigration is to talk with my wife. She was born in Mexico and had an idea she wanted to pursue and worked very hard and went through the immigration process some years ago. She had no special advantage, it was an incremental process, she played by the rules and made it work.

There are other immigrant voices like hers, many in the group of contacts she knows and works with, as well in the larger world. http://www.dontspeakforme.org/ourstory.html

I detest stereotypes equally from any quarter. That said, I often hear the common complaint from the right of do-gooder libs/progs meaning well with intentions only and then abandoning the issue. It makes me wonder sometimes how much of this immigration debate is informed by those whose personal station in life is insulated from the consequences? As John Galsworthy Nobel Laureate in literature, said "Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem."

[pampango]

119. Perhaps the one thing that you and I could agree on would be

a law that expanded legal immigration from Mexico and Latin America to 12 million people if that was combined with other measures that effectively deported the 12 million illegal immigrants who are here now.

If I misread the comments of you and others as opposed to large scale immigration in general, not just to large scale illegal immigration, then I apologize. We are more in agreement than I thought.

I have read many post by others who make their case that it is the excess supply of low-skilled labor represented by these immigrants that results in pressure on the jobs and wages of American workers. While many of these posters make constant reference to the "illegal" immigrants, their main complaint seems to me to be that these immigrants, excess labor, are here at all, in any legal capacity.

[mema42]

97. wonderfully put

Very nice reasoning and writing. I am a much better reader then a writer. The concepts you outlined should be the basis of any immigration policy in this country.

[mema42]

117. not racism or nativism

The man's arguments against illegal immigration and guest worker programs do not promote either a racist or nativist view. He actually was arguing for reasonable legal immigration and against illegal immigration.

There are very good reasons for being pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. There are quite a few good reasons in fact running the spectrum from concern about the environment to concern about the economic costs. There has been no review, no forethought, in the effect of our current lax policy on illegal immigration, or the current bill specifically that covers all the spectrum.

There is a political climate that stifles discussion in our society, a chilling effect cast on free speech by criticism of those who disagree, a lack of respect for diversity of thought and views. It is just as harmful, if not more so, then racism, nativism, or the other labels we can paint others with.

[TahitiNut]

123. Thank you. That's exactly how I view it.

I happen to be very PRO-diversity. (That includes being PRO-intermarriage. It's a personal bias - I LIKE it.) The only 'variety' I eschew are political viewpoints that're opposed to a (social-)democratic form of government - of, by, and for the people. I would advocate barring or impeding immigration for fascists, totalitarians, and monarchists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. And, the solution is ?

Having 12 - 20 million non-voting workers without legal recourse to being exploited?

As I see it, the dirty little secret that no one wants to face, is that American corporations can't compete in the global market with the cost of labor in this country what it is. The corporations have to reduce labor costs to survive. They will do so by importing labor or exporting the work. I have no sympathy for the corporations or their exploitation, but considering their :"values" and necessities, they are between a rock and a hard place. Either they compete or die.

American workers can't compete with foreign workers either here or in 3rd world or emerging economies until those workers achieve some sort of equity in wages and benefits.

The choice is to throw the workers out and fortify the borders or watch the corporations leave for cheaper labor. My sympathies lie with the workers "legal" or otherwise.

[mema42]

74. Profits

There is a difference between huge profits and surviving.
The corporations are not doing this to survive, it is about profits, and stockholders, and more profits.

The employers leaving for cheaper labor is one option, but maybe that will make the price of labor increase in the country they go to. So then at least that country gains some income. The corporation doesn't lose either way. They will make their profits.

[TahitiNut]

98. Well, it's profits for "owners" and a fraction of the value of their labor to workers.

Even in the US, the S&P500 compensates labor for less than 1/3rd of the value of their labor. You can verify this for yourself by merely comparing the net operating revenues per employee to the average compensation of an employee. When you find that the net operating revenues are $85-90K (that's AFTER all the expenses of employee compensation) compared to the average compensation of about $40K, it's crystal clear that labor gets fucked. It's only magnified by the layer-upon-layer of 'laundering' represented by the purchasing of products and services (on the expense side of the net) from other corporations - other corporations with similar fractional compensation of THEIR employees.

One of the easiest examples to comprehend is athletic shoes - e.g. Nike, Reebok, Adidas, etc. Once upon a time they were produced domestically using domestic labor - i.e. other Americans. They cost something like $25-40 a pair in today's dollars. Now they're produced using labor that's paid a small fraction of what an American worker gets paid but the prices have skyrocketed, with some shoes costing $150 per pair and even more. So, what happened that caused the price to go UP when cheaper and cheaper labor was found? It's called "profit" - and at income tax rates that are HALF of what people are charged on income from their own labor. I call that "plantation economics" - where the people picking cotton in the fields get barely enough to survive and the 'owners' on the veranda get fat and drunk.

[mema42]

116. profits for the rich

That is the point I was trying to make. That it was not about survival of business, it is about huge profits for businesses and those who profit most from them.

Open borders, mass immigration, none of that will help the people in other countries, and it won't help the people here. The real problem is the people at the top that make money and gain more power off of mass immigration. How to change that is the question, given that those people are the power elite of this country and the world.

[TahitiNut]

77. See my post #75 above ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1119465&mesg_id=1125791

First and foremost, we MUST be willing to ENFORCE our immigration laws, no matter what we decide they are by a democratic process. No matter what they are, SOME won't like them. TOO FUCKING BAD! That's what democracy gives us. Right now, they're IGNORED by the corporatists. That's the worst of all possible situations.

In my view, the foremost corruption is in creating a vast underclass of labor ... both "legal" and illegal. When our (de facto) immigration laws are almost solely driven by how we can USE people to benefit ourselves and then throw them away because they're too old or too lame, we're really fucked.

Additionally, we have to STOP supporting and protecting regimes in other countries that perpetuate inequitable economic and political systems. Mexico's oppression and disenfranchisement of its own indigenous people is appalling - where people are deprived of education and any kind of economic equity. By being a refuge for 1/6th of all the citizens of Mexico, we've merely been a pressure relief valve for an oppressive and despicable ruling class in that country. And it's NOT unique. We've done the same thing all over Latin America. We supported Batista against the 'leftists,' for God's sake! We supported Pinochet against the 'leftists' in Chile! Haiti! Nicaragua! It's long past time for a complete reversal in our foreign policy. It's completely abominable!

[dkofos]

66. Why not invite all 6 Billion + people in the world to become citizens??

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Go ahead.

[L. Coyote]

146. Just guessing, but did you read the OP at all?

[sinkingfeeling]

2. No. I don't understand where your 'new, non-voting class of workers' comes from. They're already

here as 'illegal', non-voting workers and this would give them legal status to be in the country. Only citizens have the right to vote and under this plan some might well become citizens over time. What a lot of people don't get is that many do not want to become US citizens; they just want 'better' paying jobs than they have in their country of origin. (These thoughts include ALL the 'illegals' in country, not just Hispanics)

[L. Coyote]

4. The provisions to give current non-visa migrants legal status determines when and how

and, in effect, the number of years until there is any possibiliy that they can vote. Will the provisions make sure that this will be far, far into the future, or create penalty roadblocks, etc?

[LostInAnomie]

3. Nothing like creating a slave class...

... while at the same time destroying the American worker.

It's beyond me how any Dem could support something like this.

[L. Coyote]

5. There are efforts underway to create political traps with legislation

to influence specific groups of voters. There is a lot of pressure to solve a major national problem, for one, and there is a bundling of issues including border security. Anyone voting against it will be branded as soft on protecting America. It is a minefield of politics.

[LostInAnomie]

6. Well, anyone that votes for it deserves to be blown up in that minefield.

The idea of "border security" is a load of shit pushed by Republicans looking to obfuscate the issue and protect illegal employers. If they would pass and enforce heavy fines and prison time for employing illegal workers the problem would be solved.

[L. Coyote]

7. Indeed. Enforcement would have prevented the problem. Who benefitted?

Laxity benefitted the "illegal employers" who skipped on income taxes, worker's compensation, social security taxes, state taxes, retirement prorams, and associated costs. What percentage of these criminals are loyal Republican business people?

Who lost? The workers without social security, worker's compensation, and retirement, and with sub-standard wages. How many of these are Republicans?

[NeedleCast]

121. Exactly Right

I've gotten to the point where I'm lothe to even post in an immigration thread anymore, but you're exactly right. If we get rid of the illegal hiring problem, we get rid of the illigal immigration problem.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Giving them legal status means that they can't be paid slave wages

The only incentive to hire an illegal immigrant is that you can pay them less than minimum wage. Once they have legal status there's no incentive to hire them over a citizen. There's less incentive in some cases, because many immigrants (illegal and not illegal) can't speak English or do not speak it very well.

[LostInAnomie]

9. There's a lot of incentive to hire an immigrant willing to work construction...

... for minimum wage for a couple of years and then return home in relative wealth than to pay an American the prevailing wage.

Increasing the supply of workers always results in lowered wages.

[pampango]

10. So even legal immigrants are bad for the country? n/t

[LostInAnomie]

11. Depends on what you are talking about.

If you are talking about contributing to the diversity and richness of our culture, then no.

If you are talking about bringing them in en masse as a way to undercut wages, then yes. This is especially true when they are pouring into a market that is already flooded. America is not hurting from a lack of unskilled labor. I read a report yesterday that even teenagers are having trouble finding work because they are now competing with adults for McJobs. Bringing in more unskilled labor is not going to help their situation.

[pampango]

12. Hah, but to get the diversity and richness into our culture,

you have to accept the actual immigrant who might want to work in order to support him/herself and their family. If all we are about is maximizing wage gains or minimizing wage declines, then perhaps a case could be made that immigrants are bad for our country, at least in the short run. If we are about more than $x.xx per hour, then I like the idea of immigration.

[LostInAnomie]

14. And we do accept immigrants.

Hundreds of thousands a year. But sometimes you have to let the economic stability of the working class trump diversity. This is especially true whenever Globalism has cored out US manufacturing and the only real unskilled jobs available are domestic production and service jobs.

[Madspirit]

16. They are ALREADY here.

I support Amnesty completely..
Lee

[LostInAnomie]

18. And I support making it impossible for illegal immigrants to find work.

I can't support globalism.

[Madspirit]

26. Well, we will have to step out back then

...because it's one of the activities I am MOST politically active in. Helping MY FRIENDS find ways to support themselves. Though several have little stands of their own selling food. ...and I will hide them and protect them from WHOMEVER.
Lee

[LostInAnomie]

29. I guess so, because I support my family and friends...

... who are finding it harder and harder to compete in the roofing and construction business because companies that employee illegal immigrants keep under bidding them. How stupid of them for obeying the law!

[pampango]

41. You may be happy to hear that Tom Tancredo agrees with you

about those who help illegal immigrants.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2882561

Strange bedfellows on both sides in this immigration debate. For the bill and you get Bush and the CofC; against the bill and you get Rush and Tom.

[L. Coyote]

43. Construction work pay has been frozen for more than 20 years due to the underground economy.

It is time to call it what it is, the "illegal economy" or "underground economy." It has an enormous drag on government financing, placing a greater burden on all who comply with the law and pay their taxes. The big effect on individuals, however, is wage impact. I know that construction pay has not gone up for more than 20 years due to illegal workers and contractors competing for jobs. In fact, many illegal construction workers are being paid far less than I was when doing home building 20 years ago.

[TahitiNut]

61. It's very similar to the way "scabs" were used to destroy organized labor.

I don't think ANYONE with a brain thought "scabs" were "bad people" ... but the long-practiced autocrats and robber barons knew very well how to divide the working class against itself ... and exploit the impoverishment that they perpetuated in the very perpetuation of that impoverishment and oppression.

[snailly]

147. Thank you

I hear ya, brother. I live and survive in a working class area. Every race is represented here but there is a shortage of living wage jobs. This is corporate America pushing this bullshit. WE are angry.

[mema42]

54. ITIN

I hope you are at least telling your friends to use an ITIN instead of a fraudulent social security number. They can get one legally from the IRS. The IRS does not check immigration status for an ITIN. Some of us would really like it if your friends would do this and it would make the whole picture less messy.

[mema42]

53. guest workers

Guest workers would be, I would assume. Unless there were government regulations that required the real wage that were actually enforced. Some of the current regulations allow the business to decide what prevailing wage is. Not a wise policy.

[Bridget Burke]

140. You've noticed the strong anti-immigrant bias...

Behind all these "But they're ILLEGAL" comments.

That's bias against all immigrants. "The country's full now!"

[L. Coyote]

142. Anti-immigration isn't bias if it is a reasoned position, if it's just opposition.

In the sense that bias infers prejudice, it isn't necessarily a component of opposing immigration of lots of new workers. Opposition to a temporary worker program can be rooted in human rights concerns, equal justice concerns, and fair pay concerns.

The "bias" (opposition) can be against immigration, not immigrants, for very good reasons.

[conspirator]

45. But 12 million minimum wage payed workers will still screw up the middle class, and others

who where getting a bit more than the minimum.

[L. Coyote]

13. Consider who is lobbying for this and who will benefit. Business interests

want to keep wages down. Political interests want to keep Dems from voting. A Republican wedding made in heaven?

[Madspirit]

17. My Friends

My illegal friends want this. Texan here. I actually KNOW these people and don't think of them as The Other.

I will do whatever I can to support them and I support total amnesty.
Lee

[Critters2]

19. You and the US Chamber of Commerce

always a friend to the little guy! :eyes:

[L. Coyote]

21. FOLLOW THE MONEY Lobbyists & $$$ BILLIONS with a B, BBBillions!!!

In addition to campaign contributions, organizations spend BILLIONS of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house. ...

==== Top Spenders, 1998-2006 - http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/index.asp
#1 - US Chamber of Commerce - $317,164,680

Coincidently, this lobbing organization is who wants this legislation the most.

[Madspirit]

27. Inane Babbling

:rofl: I am so poor. I was homeless for YEARS. I am unemployed. I am uninsured. I am more THEM than I am you and proud of it and I am NOTHING like the Chamber of Commerce. God how I hate racism and xenophobia. Let me count the ways.
Lee

[pampango]

40. Finally, the "corporate shill" accusation.

I try to do a post count on immigration threads to see how long it takes before a poster is accused of being a Bush/corporate supporter (Bush-bots, corporate shills, WSJ editors, etc.)

I could discuss the issue at hand, but let me just say instead that those who oppose the bill sound like ... freepers, RW'ers, Rush-bots, etc. (Heh, that was pretty satisfying. I see the joy in name-calling now.) ;)

[L. Coyote]

42. Congrats, Now you're on their "wing-nut shill" list too. Give yourself a metal.

Possessing just a little critical reasoning if enough to make that list.
Any critique of popular posters brings out the wrath of their groupies.

[L. Coyote]

20. Of course, given the alternative.

It sure isn't their legistation to write. They are in a "take what you get" situation.

Do illegal workers support law enforcement of hiring regulations?
Do they care if they suppress wages or take jobs from legal workers?
If the law was strictly enforced, would only legal workers have jobs?

Who doesn't know illegal residents, or even have good friends who are here illegally?
I have good friends here illegally, but I do not favor rewarding their criminality.

This is certainly a huge conundrum, and it was created by law breakers hiring illegal workers.

How will it be resolved is the question of the OP.
Will the resolution favor the rights of workers or disenfranchise a class of people?

I don't hear anyone suggesting amnesty if they testify against illegal employers! Now that is an amnesty I might support, so we can collect all the back taxes, social security paymennts, workers comp payments, unreported state and federal taxes, and the fines for breaking the law. Going after the source of the problem is not even being considered, it seems.

[High Plains]

125. It's not "rewarding their crimininality"...

...it is acknowledging reality. They're here, there not going away (unless you want to call out the cattle cars), we need to deal with it. I think putting them on a path to citizenship is the best solution.

[L. Coyote]

132. What happens if illegal employment ends? Illegal workers will go away.

Giving someone a path to citizenship or a permanent work visa because the broke the law and entered the country illegally before 2007 is rewarding their illegal act with a pass.

Do you suggest we should encourage the continuation of illegal employment and contracing? Or, should it be stopped?

[TahitiNut]

133. As long as we're dealing in generalizations, I have a concern ...

... that those who're MOST 'successful' in kowtowing to an exploitative employer and escaping detection and exposure is also most likely to become an active 'kapo' in assisting and extending that exploitation. (In some circles, it'd be likened to a "Judas goat.") It'd be super-simplistic and Disney-esque to regard everyone the same - innocent, hard-working, 'honest' people doing what they can to support a chubby-cheeked, happy, diligent family. That's just airhead delusions and every bit as insane as painting all with some brush of 'evil-doers' and predators. Among 12-to-20 million people, there's an enormous range of circumstances ... including coyotes and drug-dealers and field overseers and enforcers. It doesn't take 10 viewings of "Grapes of Wrath" or "Elliot Ness" to know how opportunistic people can be when disregard for law becomes rampant.

I'm really not eager to give my blessing to such scofflaws and kapos. Not yet, for sure.

[Babel_17]

22. Bush is holding border security and ...

aggressive investigation of illegal employers hostage to getting his way. Well, I'm against his tactics.

Furthermore, I'm actively feeling the pinch from the negative economic effect of having illegal employers competing for the work normally done by my employer (construction). I'm quite vexed that darned few prominent democratic politicians will acknowledge this type of negative impact. I should not have to be competing in a jobs market flooded by a wave of people who have entered illegally.

But I would support a limited amnesty, if it was well planned, for a few million of those who have been here the longest. But I think our democratic leaders should insist any bill should include provisions that ensure that number is gradually offset from the number of future immigrants we allow to enter. And they should also insist Bush takes back the billions in tax breaks he gave the wealthiest in this country and earmark the money for aiding the resettling of those illegal immigrants who don't make the cut. In addition to that, aid must be given to Mexico so it can employ its people in industries native to that country.

The bill as it stands now puts most of the burden on the working class. The wealthiest won from illegal immigration and they'd also win from the current bill.

It's a Bush bill. If our democratic congress truly wants to pass some good comprehensive reform then our people need to do the hard work of formulating a good one of their own.

[L. Coyote]

23. Very good points. The struggle will be over the amendments, reshaping the bill.

And, the Rs may try to sink it again, depending on the amendments that pass.

[AzDar]

28. This is a horrible bill; effectively creates a non-ending, second-class, slave-labor

pool (z-visas).
George W. Bush doesn't surprise me with his support of this sell-out to CorpAmerica...but Ted Kennedy?

[Marrah_G]

31. Alot of people don't understand that making illegals legal without stopping the employers...

will do nothing. Employers that hire illegals do so not just because of wages. They also have a group of workers who cannot complain or bring charges when they break safety and workplace laws.

Even if all illegal immigrants in the country were given comeplete amnesty you would still find a large group of employers that would simply replace them with new illegal workers.

These employers do not want legal workers. Legal workers have rights.

Until they start to seriously enforce labor laws, nothing will change. Walls won't help, and amnesty won't help. Legal workers, including those new 12 million or so will simply continue to scrape by, undercut by employers getting rich off the backs of those who cannot complain.

[L. Coyote]

33. Excellent Points. It all happened before, just as you say.

There was an amnesty program for illegal migrantys before, and now there are another 12 million of them. If anything, the amnesty law encouraged others to cross illegally, in anticipation of the next amnesty, and another amesty will also have the same effect.

And, you are correct. The way to stop illegal hiring is to enforce labor laws in a serious way, not to wink and nod as people get rich at the expense of minorities.

The attitude of Jack Abramoff towards Native Americans epitomizes the disrespect many Rs have for their workers. It is all about exploitation, and respoect for the rights of all people would not allow such exploitation in the first place. Since the respect is lacking, enforcement is necessary.

[mema42]

55. yup, it has to be a multi pronged approach

And the multi-pronged approach has to be enforced completely.
Employers are addicted to huge wages and they will just keep it going until they fear the law and its enforcement.

Government has gotten just as addicted to the influx of population in a way. I guess because the businesses enjoy it so much and they make money off of the taxes and business profits.

[L. Coyote]

34. U.S. Chamber of Commerce openly advocates amnesty for illegal aliens

Shocking Nominations and Other Mischief
Gillespie, U.S. Chamber of Commerce already setting policy, now selecting judges?
http://www.projectusa.org/ezine/2005/10-10-gillespie_not_me.php

... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an ally of the immigration lawyers industry, spent $28 million corporate dollars last year lobbying on federal legislation. In addition to their own lobbying, the USCofC is also a client of Ed Gillespie's lobbying firm, Quinn Gillespie & Associates.

Immigration is one of the key areas in which the USCofC weilds its millions. On its website, it openly advocates amnesty for illegal aliens and increasing "temporary guest worker programs" with paths to citizenship for the guest workers "where appropriate." The Chamber endorses the McCain-Kennedy mass amnesty, and its Essential Workers Immigration Coalition signed a letter endorsing it.

On top of the USCofC efforts, Ed Gillespie and his former boss Dick Armey have opened another route through which immigration profiteers can funnel money into Washington. They have formed a "coalition" of multinational corporations called Americans for Border and Economic Security that promises corporations legislation favorable to their bottom line in return for a public relations campaign "contribution," according to a Bloomberg News piece, of "between $50,000 and $250,000 to pay for the effort."

As an illustration of just how sick it is in this town, the pair of hustlers are having a little trouble peddling their influence. ...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

44. What disturbs me are the provisions in the bill that aren't being aired in the open.

One of them is having mandatory biometrics on the immigrants' cards. Once retinal scans become the norm, don't be surprised that the next time you go to have your driver's license renewed, you'll have to be scanned also. I believe this is a big step in creating the North American Union, which will dissolve our sovereignty.

Here is a list of 20 loopholes that were found by Sen. Sessions. I hate this man's politics but in this case I think he is right!

http://bearcreekledger.com/2007/06/05/s1348-immigration-bill-20-loopholes/

[mema42]

56. RealID

Umm, that biometrics will most probably be on the card that anyone that wants a job has. The RealID.


That would be you and me. You should read the bill. Its quite frightening really.

I wish they would just kill it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

58. And being a life-long Democrat, it freaks me out that the Democrats are backing this bill. I feel

betrayed.

[L. Coyote]

62. Watch the amendments debate. Did you see the reaction to Dorgan's amendment.

The Rs went nuts over the idea of a 5-year revisitation to the guest worker idea. Dorgan was saying, paraphrasing "What if they do not leave?"

Will the guest worker program be a free pass into the country? Sort of a come-on-in if you will work cheap, without a way of ensuring that they don't just become more illegal immigrants? Will it be nothing more than making it easy to sneek over the border if we can exploit you for a while?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

68. And I feel like pinching my fingers here (like biting my tongue), Dorgan is right.

What happens if they don't want to leave after 5 years??? It is ludicrous!!!

My feeling is, that it will be less to control immigrants than to control all of us with Real ID, etc. It is preparation for the North American Union when we can kiss America goodbye.

[L. Coyote]

91. I saw the debate. Dorgan nailed it like he does the big oil issue.

And he is correct that a guest worker program will negatively impact American workers.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

113. I was looking for Dorgan on YouTube and found this clip discussing his

Amendment etc on Lou Dobbs

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JOtYOZ4c0J8

[UTUSN]

46. 1. It's a step forward. 2.It's better than the alternative. 3.It's a NIXON-in-China opportunity.

The most urgent of the opportunities is #3, NIXON-goes-to-China. People in border states KNOW Mexican-Americans, many of them on an individual basis, and even though racism also exists in the border states, there is still personal knowledge involved---unlike Tweety, O'LOOFAH, and on into the extremes of TANCREDO, SENSENBRENNER, MALKIN, the Minutemen.

This is the closest I've come to saying something positive about Shrub, that he has a fondness for Hispanics. He had SOME contact with them, whether as servants (I don't know this), his partying at the border, his sister-in-law, the laborers in in various failed businesses, his AWOL flights into Central and South America for drugs or CIA-Poppy. Jeb Crow Shrub has had various business parterships with Latinos for whatever nefarious ends.

In the paranoid '50s and '60s, paranoid of "Red" China, NO Democratic president would have been able to recognize China without being crucified, probably literally, by the John Birch Society. Only a weird straddler like NIXON--with his delusions of historicity--with his credentials as a Red-hunter, could have assured the brainwashed country that "Red" hordes would not be patrolling American streets if China were recognized.

So this is one of those moments. Shrub might not be so strong as Tricky Dick against his own flying monkeys. He collapsed on Aunt Harriet MIERS in the face of Laura INGRAHAM, fer gudness sakes. But if he doesn't do it, the next prez ain't going to do it, whether it's a wingnut president (without Shrub's border background) or a Dem, who will be crucified.

===========Now, that said, the o.p. raises some profound issuess: The creation of a sub-class exploited for labor and deprived of voting and other rights.


I say, this Shrub law is a first step. It is likely that this sub-class argument will lead to the SCOTUS, and even a reactionary wingnut SCOTUS cannot ignore the inequality. If this isn't taxation-without-representation, what is?


What is the alternative? Despite the vehemence of the wingnuts' opposition, I have never heard WHAT it is that TANCREDO, SENSENBRENNER, DOBBS, MALKIN, and the Minutemen WANT. I hear the part about "securing the border" (a financial boondoggle), but what about the 12 million? Do they seriously want DEPORTATION?

It's a first step. It's better than the alternative. It's a NIXON-in-China opportunity.




=========== DANG!!1 Where are my flamers when I post something sensibly remarkable?!!1 They swarm at me for my more, um, ERRATIC posts!!1

[L. Coyote]

47. Something has to be done. The OP poses the question of ramifications to democracy.

What is the net effect of having 12 million workers who cannot vote? A Bush Presidency. Think Florida 2000. What if there had been enforcement of labor laws and legitimate migration of workers with a path to citizenship since say, 1980, when Reagan took office? How would that have altered Florida's electorate and politics? Would Bush still be President. WELL, can't change the past.

NOW, thinking about the future. Do Dems want to allow Republicans to create a class of non-voting workers? SIMPLE enough, not?

Something has to be done, and that fact is being leveraged into a program to disenfranchise the left.
Rather than a "Nixon-in-China opportunity" this is a "More-Nixons-in-the-White-House" opportunity, or, better stated, more Bushes.

[UTUSN]

48. As I said, the clear inequalities will have to be faced by SCOTUS

NOT taking advantage of Shrub's unique positioning means EITHER a far more horrendously draconian "law" by the next wingnut president or an unleashing of total war towards a Dem president.


I repeat, this is a first step. It will LEAD to CORRECTIVE steps. But not taking the first step will lead to chaos.

[L. Coyote]

49. The amendments to the proposed legislation will be an interesting debate

and will have some impact on the legislation.

[mema42]

65. not sure about this

I'm not quite sure what is trying to be said here. The 12 million that would be given legal status is not an issue the Supreme Court would be concerned about. The issue of their not voting is not an issue the Supreme Court is going to tackle.

Why? Well the Constitution is one big reason.

The Federal government is given control of immigration into the country and the naturalization process. I am not sure at all the Federal government is given exclusive control of immigration enforcement.

The constitution gives the vote for federal offices to citizens, whether that is naturalized citizens or native citizens.

There is no real reason for them to be able to vote in federal office anyhow. Why it should be considered an issue now is beyond me. We have been having immigration for a long time without voting, in fact it is pretty normal for countries to do that. Besides I question the wisdom of saying immigrants that have not chosen to naturalize can vote. I'd suggest that is why the framers of the constitution had that restriction in there. If they prefer citizenship in another country, then why should the be given a right exclusive to citizenship? Could they not influence this country to the detriment of the citizens? The Federalist Papers would be a good read on this subject perhaps.

[UTUSN]

71. Why are you not sure of "what is trying to be said?" It might even be over-simplified

Who said, " immigrants that have not chosen to naturalize can vote..."


I responded to the o.p.'s posing the creation of a separate, unequal class of exploited workers without certain rights. Something like slavery or indentured servitude. That would appear to be a simple issue to be challenged in the courts.

[mema42]

72. part of what the OP mentioned was the right to vote

The lack of right to vote for those legalized by the bill was mentioned in the original post. I thought that is what you were referring to as far as SCOTUS. Until they become citizens they will be not be entitled to the right to vote. This is no different then any other immigrant though, until they are naturalized they do not have the right to vote.

I'm not aware of any of the amendments planned that would restrict the rights of the new z-visa immigrants further then the rights of other immigrants that have not naturalized.

[mema42]

63. I think

I think some of them (the wingnuts) could be convinced to accept some as legal immigrants with a possible citizenship earned later. Quite a few are in areas that are hit hardest by the issue of illegal immigration and they feel their government is betraying them for big business too. Bush they have felt that way about for a long time, but this is going to far to them. The minuteman didn't exist until the problem got way to out of hand for the people that do live with it. They saw business getting the perks and them dealing with the problems.

Remember that many of the Mexican laborers that took the job from the Katrina rebuilding were illegal. Many of the citizens in that area had been relying on those jobs for survival. I know that one group of blacks were willing to work for $10 an hour on rebuilding/construction and the Mexicans came, willing to work for less, they lost the jobs after two weeks of work and were unemployed again. That was just business greed, and quite a few Republicans were upset that Bush went along with that too.

[L. Coyote]

76. Guest worker programs should include strong wage protections for U.S. workers

August 10, 2006 | EPI Issue Brief #226
Guest worker programs should include strong wage protections for U.S. workers
by Ross Eisenbrey and Monique Morrissey
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib226

A key issue of evolving immigration policy in the United States is whether employers should be able to hire temporary or "guest" workers from other countries when workers are scarce and wages are rising. Though popular with employers, guest worker programs are generally opposed by labor unions and others who say these programs risk displacing U.S. workers or pushing down their wages.

The immigration bill passed on a bipartisan basis by the U.S. Senate—the McCain-Kennedy bill, or S. 2611—tries to balance these competing concerns by requiring employers who want to recruit temporary guest workers in the construction and service industries to first offer the jobs, at the prevailing industry wage, to U.S. workers. If no qualified U.S. workers apply for the jobs, employers can hire guest workers but must pay them the prevailing wage.

In a report issued in July 2006, the Senate Republican Policy Committee (RPC) attacked the prevailing wage provision .... claims that the law expands the reach of the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires construction companies with federal contracts to pay employees the prevailing wage. But the McCain-Kennedy bill specifies only that the wage employers offer to construction workers must be the prevailing wage, as measured under the Davis-Bacon Act, and none of Davis-Bacon's wage reporting or enforcement provisions is applied to guest workers.

Should immigration reform include prevailing wage protections?

The rationale for expanding guest worker programs is to increase the supply of workers during labor shortages. Most economists would dispute the notion of a labor shortage in the case of low-skilled workers, since employers can always find workers to fill these jobs if they offer high enough wages.

............

[Cleita]

81. It seems demanding that employers pay everyone the same wage

would accomplish that. There should also be stipulations that they must hire American nationals first before they hire immigrants.

[Cleita]

79. All Americans should be because even if they don't care about

the inherent injustice of this, they should be afraid that this could affect them down the road. How soon before some legislative body decides that certain people shouldn't have certain civil rights because they aren't acceptably as American as they should be? The south before the civil rights movement comes to mind. It seems we have been down that road before. Creating a separate class of second class residents and citizens isn't acceptable and how soon before others are forced to join them?

[mema42]

84. you mean the southern democrats?

I do not think the situation that occurred with the south will happen with immigrants. Immigrants are a long part of our history, and in general we do welcome them, I do believe that any immigrant we invite in should have an option to become a citizen at some time. As I recall when a real program was started in this country for immigration, a real policy beyond a very open policy when the country first started, it was something like 10 or 20 years. That seems overly long now, somewhere around 5 - 10. I would like to see legal immigrants that choose not to become citizens have more access to public services. Not because they are entitled, because in most cases citizens aren't entitled, but because of providing a warm welcome and giving them the chance.

On the other hand, I do not agree with all immigrants that are in a minority being included in that minority for purposes of meeting minority guidelines. Some minorities in this country natively have it to tough to have to go up against those in a minority from another country that have had more opportunities.

[L. Coyote]

80. Sunset provision on guest worker program passes

Amnesty bill collapses? Sunset provision on guest worker program passes
June 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/07/amnesty-bill-collapses-sunset-provision-on-guest-worker-program-passes/

Byron Dorgan’s been trying to kill the guest worker program for weeks to protect American labor. His first attempt, an amendment that would have eliminated it entirely, failed 31-64. So he tried another tactic tonight — a sunset provision that would eliminate the program after five years. .....

The fear (i.e. hope) now is that having one of the central planks of the bill marked for death in five years will cause the coalition supporting this travesty to fracture. ... the hardest of GOP hardliners — Jeff Sessions, Jim DeMint, and David Vitter, who object to “guest workers” on principle and smell blood in the water here. The question thus becomes: are there enough people among the 48 who voted no who are so disgruntled by this result that they’ll join Sessions et al. in filibustering the whole damn bill? If so, then we have our fabled “killer amendment.”

[L. Coyote]

82. Sen. Dorgan: Unlabor Day - The immigration bill will hurt American workers

Unlabor Day - The immigration bill will hurt American workers.
By Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTZhOTBiMWMyMzJlZWNkNjU5MzMwODNjMzlmNWFjODE=

Few issues cause more passion than the subject of immigration and the U.S. Senate is right in the middle of debating this issue.

Unfortunately the proposal the U.S. Senate is considering was cooked up by a small group of senators negotiating with the White House. It’s being sold as a “great compromise.” But it is not that at all.

I don’t support this immigration bill. I’ll explain why.

The first responsibility we have is to provide real border security so we don’t have massive illegal immigration coming across our borders. With the estimated 12 million people who have already entered our country illegally, it’s clear we’re not yet doing that. ......

[pingzing58]

126. What do understand by "real border security?"

Because if you mean that not one person can cross our border
without the U.S. government knowing IS IMPOSSIBLE.  It just
isn't.  Get your head out of the clouds and understand this
reality.  It's like saying that we will not bring our troops
home until there is peace in the middle east.  It's not going
to happen.

[L. Coyote]

127. You are right. Is the $4.4 BILLION in the current legislation pure cronyism

and a waste of taxpayer money? Because it simply will not stop illegal migration and put coyotes out of business. Actually, it is a waste of our children's tawpayer money, since it is more Republican deficit spending.

I'd like to see a breakdown on where the $4.4 BILLION is going. Is it a giant cronyism program for someone selling drones, with contactor Bushco buddies building walls, more no-bid contracting, kickbacks to Republicans, bribes to get the contracts, lots of border police hired by Monica Goodling clones, etc.?

[pingzing58]

128. I've been searching for an argument against the funding for a fence and yours is excellent.

Bushco has admirably used "fear" as a way of getting
the American public to give him licence to surrender our civil
rights.  The best response to "fear" is
"greed."  All the Dems have to do is bring up the
"who's going to make the money" off of this deal. 
That will put and end to this impossible to achieve border
security argument. 

[mema42]

85. good thing it is gone

That is a good thing that it is gone. This was more of a business needs portion of the bill then citizen or people needs part of the bill.

[L. Coyote]

87. The sunset provision passed, but the guest worker provision was not amended out.

Dorgan first tried to get the guest worker provision amended out. That failed, and he changed tactics. His five year sunset provision amendment passed.

Even if this makes it out of the Senate, the whole process starts anew in the House. It is not too late to impact this legislation.

[L. Coyote]

83. Bush defends immigration bill, guest worker program

Bush defends immigration bill, guest worker program
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-bush30may30,1,2444677.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true

GLYNCO, GA — In this article from the Los Angeles Times, President Bush cranked up his campaign for immigration reform, accusing detractors of unfairly picking apart a compromise bill and of denouncing the legislation without reading it.

The president used his most forceful language yet in support of the Senate bill, which would establish a point system for awarding green cards and offer legal status to many undocumented workers already in the country. ...

One reason Bush chose to speak to law enforcement trainees at this federal facility about 60 miles south of Savannah was to underscore his commitment to improved border controls. The bill would increase the number of border agents to 20,000, add hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, and build 105 more surveillance towers.

[L. Coyote]

86. Registration, temporary cards, "Z" visas, eight year waits, barriers to citizenship

The details are the problem. A new class of disenfranchised workers will result. This is a steal votes from Liberals bill.

The "touchback" idea is a hurdle that can easily be overcome by illegals if they cannot afford to return home. They just forego ever having a vote (citizenship) and become permanent green card holders. If they can "touchback" then the get to pass go on the path to citizenship after an eight year wait until eligibility begins. So, what is the soonest only a portion of these hard working human beings might have a right to vote? The election of 2020, or so??

=============
Senators Fail to Strip Key Provision From Compromise Immigration Bill
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274813,00.html

Illegals, once they come out of the shadows and register, receive a temporary card and eventually a special "Z visa" to work indefinitely in the U.S, a process that takes a minimum of eight years. They are not required to return to their home country unless they wish to become U.S. citizens.

Conservatives call this "amnesty," but supporters like Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a lead negotiator, denies that charge.

"It's not amnesty. Amnesty is getting something for nothing. These workers have to pay a $5,000 fine. That's a pretty substantial amount for many of them," he said. Liberal critics say that the "touchback" provision, or home-country return, is not practical and would cause undo hardship on low-wage immigrants.

[mema42]

88. touchback and more

The touchback only requires them to go to a consulate, they don't really have to go to their country, as I remember. There is nothing wrong with waiting, it does give them the chance to meet the other requirements of citizenship, taking the test, learning english if they do not know it, that kind of thing. These are not unreasonable, and waiting for the right to vote isn't unreasonable either. In fact voting is often a right reserved to citizens.

Canada and Mexico both have requirements for citizenship also. The citizenship requirements as well as the immigration policies of both countries are stricter. As I recall you must have a Mexican ancestor (parent) to become a Mexican citizen. Canada I do not recall, but it is not simple. Neither allow non-citizens to vote.

The concept that all are hard working is just as much of a fallacy as that all are criminals, they are people and they vary. As I remember $1000 is paid for the Z-visa, the rest is for when/if they choose to become LPR, legal permanent resident. So the Senator is kind of fudging the numbers. I also believe a program is being set up to pay the Z-visa cost off in payments. Its amnesty in my view, but the word in itself doesn't have to be bad. The question is do all deserve amnesty? No, probably not. the good, honest, hard working people, yes.


Both sides are spreading it thick on this issue, rather then giving facts. I guess that is just politics.

[lovuian]

92. I have know idea what the Dems are thinking about on this

issue... probably more workers for social security contributors

more voters??? cause these people don't vote??? they can't their ilegal

[L. Coyote]

94. Watch the Senate on C-SPAN when it goes back to the floor, and read the Congressional Record.

[pingzing58]

108. It's about dealing with reality! It's about dealing with things as they are.

[Blue_Tires]

93. ironically, Europe is having its own issues

with immigrants coming from the middle east and by boat from africa...not sure how they will decide to handle this

[MrSlayer]

99. I'm very conservative on illegal immigration.

I'm completely against this idiot President and his amnesty bill.

[pingzing58]

106. Why?

[moondust]

112. I don't blame the Mexicans.

For the most part I think they're just impoverished people seeking to do better than a lifetime of almost certain poverty for themselves and their children. I believe that if the tables were turned most "younger" Americans would be willing to take the same risk in hopes of gaining the same opportunities.

Blame the corporations that have built industries on the backs of illegals by illegally hiring them.

Blame the corporate-owned U.S. gov't for not enforcing immigration laws and not securing the border - FOR DECADES.

If not for the businesses that illegally hire them and the U.S. gov't that has looked the other way, the illegals would have no reason or illegal means to come here. Problem solved.

[L. Coyote]

118. Blaming corporations is a simplificatioin. Lots of independent businessmen too.

In the worlds of agriculture and construction, many of the businesses are not corporations. Individuals hire illegal labor too. But, most of the legal skirting is done by contracting rather than employment. Farms hire a contractor to harvest the fields, and the contractor assumes the risk of hiring illegally, or subcontracts. Contractors are not subject to the same labor laws as employers.

You are so right to bring up "FOR DECADES" and it is important to understand the impact this has already had on American politics and voting. Would Gore have won Florida in 2000 if more "residents" had attained the right to vote? I'd love to see statistics on how many "illegal aliens" would be voting citizens by now if their entry into the country had been ligitimate when they crossed the border!! And, how few would vote Republican??

[Babel_17]

124. Fwiw, I work with many legal immigrants

It's always been a non-issue for me. In fact, most of my time has been spent with foremen who were immigrants. The issue is when a very large unregulated wave of illegal workers is enticed in by illegal employers. Legal immigration is basically great because it's planned to benefit everyone.

I'm going to guess that this issue affects people personally and directly depending on where they live and work. The overall issue is one we all have to face. I'm just hoping this congress does a better job with this complex conglomeration of legislation than the other congresses did with the legislation Bushco was pushing at their respective times.

Imo it should be a total compromise. And it should be based on truth. The truth is that we are here, now, faced with this tough bill because government has consistently dropped the ball on this over these last several years. Well, it's time to do hard work and admit to the american people, and businesses, and the workers who've been in limbo, that they're not going to get everything they want. There are conflicting demands and responsibilities.

This is an accountability moment and I'll be damned if I'll accept a half-assed piece of legislation that ignores the reality on the ground and which is based mostly on political positioning. Politicians, as a class, shouldn't be allowed to screw over the people this legislation affects because they are afraid of the consequences to themselves. Cliff's Notes: Sometimes you have to kick and scream to get good government.

P.S. This better be the last time we have to do a major fix of the system as a result of criminal negligence.

Edit: Changed "foreman" to "foremen", the poor grammar was beyond fixing. :)

[L. Coyote]

129. TEXT Senate Bill 1348 = MUST READ

TEXT Senate Bill 1348 = MUST READ

http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm

PDF link: http://kennedy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/MDM07620_xml.pdf

[L. Coyote]

130. A thread for those who have read the proposed language

Senate Bill 1348 is much discussed, but who has read the text?
Perhaps this one DU thread could be limited to those who have.

TEXT Senate Bill 1348 = READ first, then comment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x289114

[Cleita]

138. I read it this afternoon, all 628 pages, but why?

It didn't pass according to the Senate website. :shrug:

[L. Coyote]

141. It is going to the Senate Floor for debate, and amendments will be offered.

The Dems and Rs have agreed to limit the number of amendments to vote on. It was being filibustered to death with amendment after amendment by opponents. Then they were unable to get the 60 votes to end debate so it could proceed. Reid took it off and agreement has been reached to bring it back to the floor.

So now, the question to ask is, what did you find unacceptable in Bush's proposed language after reading it?

Is this a draconion police state law? Do you think anyone who disobeys the command of an officer should get 5 years?

As I read this bill, if a border patrol officer told you to "Sit down," and you did not, you could go to jail. If passed, instead of going to jail for a crime, you could go to jail for not obeying a command.

[Cleita]

143. I posted my thoughts to you someplace else, but here I'll do it again.

I give my opinion to your question in the fourth paragraph of my answer.

Title I—Border Enforcement and Title II—Interior Enforcement

(D)Worksite enforcement tools – page 8 of pdf document.

Refers to what we call the Green Card. All employers should be required to demand a verifiable one when hiring immigrants. My question is, what is to stop them from hiring employees and not entering them into the system or an under the table hire as they are called. Not putting a worker in the system enables a person to work here without the employer being caught and fined. It seems we need to expand our quotas to issue more green cards to meet the demand for these workers and to prevent them from being exploited by the employers.

It seems that improving the provisions of paragraph (D) would make the enforcements of (A), (B) and (C) unnecessary. I am not against providing 18,000 border guards, however, because it provides civil service jobs in a country where jobs are eroding. But that’s a socialist idea so ignore me.

Three fences to be built with roads in between. That should keep them out by land. Don’t know about by air and by sea. What an exercise in futility. However, on the plus side there are those jobs that will be created unless the building of the roads are subcontracted to Halliburton.

For those who resists a command from a law enforcement agent will get a fine and/or imprisonment of up to five years not to mention the special penalties that can incarcerate violators of immigration law up to twenty or thirty years. Yet Scooter Libby only gets 30 months in jail for a treasonous act. Talk about draconian measures.

About the building of detention facilites. Yes this also creates jobs, but certainly increasing the quotas so that not so many need to be detained would be a better solution. IMHO only those who have committed real crimes like drug trafficking should be detained. This should make further detention facilities unnecessary and are more like concentration camps than not.

Establishment of a United States-Mexico border enforcement commission. What no United States-Canada border enforcement commission?

Felons and gang bangers? It seems this doesn’t belong in this document. Any law enforcement can claim that five or more immigrants consists of a gang is inviting abuse of the detainees by police who can designate anyone they please as gang bangers. This needs to be addressed separately, considering gangs that are in this country are mostly are formed on this side of the border. Gang bangers in Latin countries are doing well and don’t need to immigrate here.

Title III—Worksite Enforcement
I’m sceptical of letting the employer verify the documents. What we need is copies of the document, mainly the Green Card type work permit to be vetted by the INS directly whenever there is a hire. Also, there needs to be a way to do this quickly, which means more INS employees and modern electronic equipment. Since law enforcement agencies seem to be able to do this with driver’s licenses and other legal documentation and credit card companies do this instantly, I see no reason the INS and SSA can’t do this, too. The minute the middleman, the employer is allowed to do this through the I-9 and W-4 documents, it invites fraud. The EEVS will prove nothing. An alien can work under someone’s name and SS # if that person is willing to allow it.

The way I see it you need only two documents a Social Security card and a Green Card type work permit. Employers should verify the genuineness of both documents through the agencies that distribute them the Social Security Administration and the Immigration and Naturalization Service directly each time they hire an immigrant. It should be easy if both agencies are brought up to date both in personnel and electronically. All that other BS is just that BS and will continue the abuse of the system.

Good that the penalties to employers have increased. I don’t know if it will make a big difference with the mega-corporations, who will probably outsource more than ever, but it should reign in the smaller companies and wealthy individuals who exploit the cheap labor offered by immigrants. It may be a step in the right direction.

Title IV—New Temporary Worker Program

Does this deposit to the treasury if the employer of Y immigrants doesn’t provide health insurance mean the the government will? Or do they just pocket the money? Just asking. At least it stipulates that the immigrant would be hired at the same wage and conditions that a native would be hired. So at least in theory it prevents that exploitation. Too bad the provisions against torture don’t extend to our prisoners of war.

I have mixed feelings about this. In a way I want these field laborers to be able to work without fearing La Migra. I worked alongside the braceros back in the fifties in the fields of So. California. For us American kids, It was our summer job. The pay was pitiful and the immigrant workers slept in the fields when we went home but at least they weren’t hunted down. We, as well as them, also had FICA and SDI taken from our checks back then.

I can see the abuse that can arise in the area of domestic and farm workers who don’t go home when their visas are up and they are liable to slip throught the cracks in the system. This extends to British, Irish and Scandanavian nannies too as well as the hispanic ones. I feel, either give them a work visa with permanent residency as the need for immigrant workers arises or forget about it. Why send the farm workers home if they don’t want to go home? They follow the crop harvests around the country anyway. I don’t like the possibilities at all.

My skin crawls when I read Homeland Security. I wish they weren’t involved.

Title V—Immigration Benefits

Merit based immigration IMHO is just plain wrong. Why bring over a bunch of professionals to compete with our professionals, when it’s the menial labor that we need? The old system of having an employer verify that he couldn’t find an American as well qualified as the immigrant he wants to bring over worked quite well until now. Why change?


Title VI—Nonimmigrants In the United States Previously In Unlawful Status.

This is of course amnesty, which I suppose is better than rounding up the millions of them, putting them in detention camps and then deporting them. I don’t like the fines. It opens up a business opportunity for predatory lenders who make their money on the backs of the poor. This must have come from the Republican side of the aisle who can’t punish economic victims enough these days just because they broke an unjust law.

Title VII—Miscellaneous

Declaration of English as the national language. Well, that went over so well in Canada and Great Britain when they tried it. News flash. The French Canadians still speak French and the Welsh still speak the Welsh language. So why don’t we try proven failed policies here? *idiot*

[L. Coyote]

145. The good and lenghty comments are apprecited.

Adding about 20,000 police to a 2,000 mile border and building triple fencing is just throwing money at a solution that has not worked, and a complete misdirection of resources. Why can't those 20,000 people do productive work instead, or why can't they enforce labor laws and attack the root cause of the problem instead. Why not give any Latin American with a passport a tourist visa? End coyote abuse and enforce labor laws. If there is no illegal job, there is no way to become and illegal worker.

The direction of the proposed legislation is totally in keeping with a police state mentality, racism, paranoid politics, xenophobia, and exploitation of fear of terrorism to further partisan political control. It is fascist, at best, and probably unconstitutional in parts.

There is also further erosion of legal rights of American citizens. It is very much an extension of Patriot Act and Homeland Security politics.

I reacted similarly to the "gang" provisions. What an arbitary notion. Are Country Club white collar criminal stock traders ever classified as gangs? This is racism at work.

The temporary worker program seems unnecessary, especially if current undocuments are given a pass. One step at a time.

In the end, this legislation needs to be broken up into it's distinct parts, not bundled to allow a lot of objectionable ideas to stealthfully slip by on the pretense that a problem is being solved. Tackle each issue on its own merits. Walls, personnel, enforcement of labor laws, underground economy, tax evasions, OSHA, illegal border crossing, etc., are linked and their solutions are too. But, the problems will continue if the solutions are misdirected at the symptoms, plain and simple.

I'm so reminded of the Patriot Act passing w/o any Congress person having read it! It is good to see at least one DUer read a proposed law. That more than can be said of Congress and the Patriot Act.

[Lasher]

135. Pretty good thread here

There's actually some intelligent discussion going on here, amongst the name calling.

[L. Coyote]

137. Provision: FAILURE TO OBEY LAWFUL ORDERS up to 5 years in prison.

FAILURE TO OBEY LAWFUL ORDERS OF BOR8DER ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

"Whoever willfully disregards or disobeys the lawful authority or command of any officer or employee of the United States charged with enforcing the immigration, customs, or other laws of the United States while engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official duties shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1348 :

Follow the link above to a PDF that you can copy from.

[hogwyld]

139. I also support complete amnesty and citizenship

That way, their rights will be protected as a voting block. There is no reason why they should be disenfranchised due to their skin color or origin. If they're here, they should stay here, and they should be given the right to vote.

[L. Coyote]

148. The path to citizenship should not be delayed by the bill, but, should everyone

who managed to illegally enter the country be given a pass AGAIN, like 20 years ago. How will that NOT encourage the next 12 million to do the same so they get the next free pass? When will this all end? Only when it is not rewarded with illegal jobs and free passes.

I hate to say it, but a commission needs to study this and make recommendations. The current language is more WH basement product, not a true bipartisan solution.