Illegal Immigration and the Democrats

[Sharpe]

(warning - long Sharpe-style political post :) )

I was going to right up a mini-review of Crashing the Gate (super mini-review: short, direct, good summary of current political affairs, well written argument for a bottom up revolution in the Democratic party, very thin on specifics and policy - Sharpe gives it a thumbs up), but then I saw all this hullabaloo about the immigration protests this weekend, and the Democratic response to it. The protests, the Demo reaction, and the recent events in a Congressional replacement election down here in Orange County CA make me think the Demos are pissing away a golden opportunity, both policy wise and politically, to take a stand against illegal employment.

First off, the PC-required disclaimer: I am strongly opposed to *illegal* immigration, NOT legal immigration (at present levels) and not all immigration combined. Also, this is not a racial- or ethnic-based argument. My core policy position is that the amount of illegal immigration we are experiencing in this country is deeply bad for the American working and middle classes economically: it depresses wages in the lower margins of the labor market, weakens the bargaining power of the working class, empowers exploitative employers, and also has a major impact on housing, transportation, education, and health care resources. And the driving force behind illegal immigration, the strong financial incentive that lures illegals here, is illegal employment, and the fact that we don't enforce our own laws on illegal employers.

The American beneficiaries of these policies are almost entirely the wealthiest classes: those who own stocks or companies that benefit from illegal immigration's massive weakening of the low-end labor market. Jason and others have correctly pointed out that one of the biggest and most negative long term economic trends in our current recovery is that a relatively small amount of the growth is flowing to the working and middle classes: this recovery is largely a wealthy-class recovery. (Note - I don't begrudge the wealthy their success, my beef is that the economy is NOT prospering for a huge chunk of the population.)

Although there are a variety of reasons why the labor market is so weak (production technology, outsourcing, the political weakness of unions, the Bush Administration's lax enforcement of regulation) I personally believe that illegal immigration is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) factors. I firmly believe that we are not going to return the economy to promoting a healthy and prosperous middle class until we address the vast and unregulated influx of cheap illegal labor.

Under our current policies we are essentially importing poverty, and creating a class of workers with few rights and almost no bargaining power, which then creates a ripple effect of poverty and labor weakness accross the bottom and middle of the economy. Some on the left argue that the answer is to empower the illegals with labor market protections, and then open the borders. Unfortunately, global demographics make that a completely terrible idea. Right now illegal immigration is around 500,000 per year but we deport attempted illegals to the tune of 4,000,000 plus, each year. In other words, the current flood is only about 10% to 15% of the total attempted illegal entries. And that's under a system where it is (at least ostensibly) illegal, and quite expensive and often dangerous. If you opened the borders, numbers would increase massively, and we just can't sustain that, economically or environmentally.

The engine that drives this whole train is illegal employment. Illegals are not legally allowed to work here in the US but many thousands of employers hire them anyway, b/c they work cheap and are often unable to access their legal rights and are thus easily (and cheaply) exploited. And the very worst thing about this whole issue is how crassly the employers break the law. There is essentially NO enforcement against employers. Employers can hire many hundreds of illegals with little to no fear of ANY reprisal, and if they do get caught the worst that happens is typically a minor fine (much cheaper than actually hiring legal labor). If you eliminated the ability of employers to hire illegals without repercussion, the economic engine of this debacle would be cut off at the roots.

And this is a huge potential political football. Illegal employers are essentially "gaming the system", manipulating the labor market by supporting lax enforcement (or no enforcement) of the law, and by lobbying against any reforms. (I particularly love it when the big employer-exploiters take a stand against enforcement of illegal employment laws, on the grounds that it is a "racist" attack on the poor illegals, whom the employers are ruthlessly exploiting by the standards of an honest labor market.) The Republicans have a huge vulnerability on this issue as despite 12 years of Congressional majorities and 6 years of complete federal supremacy they have done essentially nothing on illegal employment. And when the Republicans do "get tough" on illegal immigration, it is often dangerously close to blaming the victim. Most of the ire fired up on right wing talk radio gets focused on the "damn <insert ethnicity here>", and on "closing the border" or militarizing the border, etc.

There is a HUGE opportunity for Democrats to take a strong stand in favor of legal employment, in favor of labor protections, in favor of wage and hour laws, and against illegal employment. If the Demos would put forward a real plan to enforce the law against illegal employment in the context of labor protection, it would be a huge boost to the working and middle classes and would also eliminate the economic incentive that draws illegal immigrants here. This could be done in a way that's not racist, not anti-foreigner, and not militaristic or jingoistic.

But the Demos don't seem to want to go this way. They seem too caught up in the politically correct spin and are salivating at a chance to attack the Republicans as racist. Looking at the left-ish news media and blogs over this weekend I see the common BS: mis-labelling any anti-illegal-immigrant proposal as merely "anti-immigrant" (there's a big difference), immediately jumping on the right wing as racist and xenophobic, mis-characterizing all illegals as "economic refugess", and blaming all this illegal immigration on the perils of free trade (free trade of course plays a role but so do corruption, exploitation, politics and other factors in the home countries of the illegals).

To close off this long post, here's a recent politcal story that shows the potentials and perils of this issue. Here in Orange Country CA there was a replacement Congressional eleciton last year to fill the seat of Christopher Cox who was put in charge of the SEC by Bush. The district is a "red" district which has gone Republican 60 to 40 in the last several elections. Jim Gilchrist, a Republican who is also the founder of the Minuteman project (a strongly anti-illegal immigration groups which has done grandstanding stunts like citizen patrols of the border etc) joined the race. The local Republican party rejected him (they are firmly in the pocket of the illegal-employers) and so he ran as an independent.

In the first election, Gilchrist got 16% of the vote and helped force a run off. During the run-up to the second election a lot of the left wing blogosphere was salivating at the chance to pick off the Republican front-runner. I saw on Daily Kos and other places the following analysis: the district is 60-40 Republican so if Gilchrist takes 20%, he will take all 20% from the Republicans, and this red Orange County district will go to the Demo candidate. And on election day, Gilchrist got 25% of the vote, a surprisingly strong showing for a candidate with no party backing.

But the Demos didn't benefit. Nope, the Republicans won by the usual 20 point margin. The Republican candidate lost 13 points from the usual 60 to rack up 47 (a 22% drop). The Demo candidate lost 12 points from the usual 40 to rack up a miserable 28 (a 32% drop). In other words Gilchrist the anti-illegal candidate pulled half of his support form the Repubs and half from the Demos. In terms of relative impact, Gilchrist hurt the Demos WORSE than the Repubs.

Just imagine if this was a normal race with no Gilchrist and the Demo candidate adopted a strong anti-illegal-employment platform.

Yet the Demos seem unable to break out of the PC, play-the-race-card, blame the Republicans mind set. It really pisses me off. The political terrain favors some Demo pick-up this year but if the Demos took a smart stance against illegal employment they would both be doing the right thing in a major way, AND I strongly believe the political benefits would be huge.

And of course, the Demo's current strategy runs the risk of being slammed by a Republican candidate who can get tough on illegal immigration without getting too far into race baiting.

The only way that the Demos don't take back the White House in 08 is if they blow this chance on illegal immigration and the Republicans put forward a tough but not too jingoistic anti-illegal platform. Of course, the Demos being who they are, right now they are on track to blow it big time :0.

[wildpokerman]

Personally I feel the only way to solve it is a renewed sense of manifest destiny. We could just annex Canada and Mexico and poof, no more border problems.

[Backov]

As long as the provinces get States rights, this Canuck is all for it.

[Enidigm]

I totally agree with everything in that post, Sharpe. That was well written and took more time then i'm willing to devote to writing, so i'm glad you brought this subject up.

Ultimately the Democrats are, for a lack of a better description, an "Urban" party. They can't seem to fathom things except as Urban Renewal/Racial Equality in the old framework of the Seventies. Mexican immigration is a huge factor in large cities like LA, but a proportionately larger influence in the smaller cities and states all along the border.

America was built as a nation of immigrants; and i still support legal immigration. Hell, on my father's side they were still speaking German until the 1920's. But the traumatic experience of immigration that immigrants experienced in the past is not the same kind of dislocation. There is also an overwhelming cultural dislocation going on.

But what i find hard to resolve is the seeming lack of nationalism in the new immigrant communities. Waving Mexican flags might seem to be a kind of cultural symbol more then anything, but this "new" immigration America has experienced, in a world with modern transportation and communications, seems much less motivated by ideals then economics. This huge semi-transient workforce; how does it view it's relationship with America? Sure, it wants to live hear compared to Mexico; but wanting and deserving are different things. I don't want to deny people's right to a better life, but at the same time it's not their right to leach upon our system and reduce, if not in many cases bankrupt, the social nets in the communities where large numbers of them have congregated. Or at least, i should have a right to dispute with this situation.

And considering Mexico's (un)offical but very public standpoint of being essentially a slow sucking parasite, and the huge, huge amounts of crime and criminal activity the porous border and homoginized ethnicity provides the criminal elements, there are some serious issues. I mean, if we were Russia, we'd be pounding the border cities of Mexico to dust now, considering how much illegal trans-border activity goes through them.

But the main reason the Democrats have so little ability in this area is because they've been squeezed into little northern and pacific states that don't really have to deal with this. A southern Texas Democrat, having the 'boots on the ground' could make a strong anti-illegal immigration platform. But alas, they ran them 'fellers out a the state 30 years ago.

The only real hope, unfortunately, for immigration reform will come from the Southern state Republicans. It has too.

[Jason McCullough]

There is a HUGE opportunity for Democrats to take a strong stand in favor of legal employment, in favor of labor protections, in favor of wage and hour laws, and against illegal employment. If the Demos would put forward a real plan to enforce the law against illegal employment in the context of labor protection, it would be a huge boost to the working and middle classes and would also eliminate the economic incentive that draws illegal immigrants here. This could be done in a way that's not racist, not anti-foreigner, and not militaristic or jingoistic.

What would that be, pray tell? If you can craft an ad that goes after illegal employment without pandering to the racist vote, ok, but I don't see it.

Also note that Southern California is the area of the country where this is the biggest deal; for the country in general, it's really not an issue.

[Sharpe]

Jason - you just do an add that focuses on the economic impact of illegal employment and the lack of Republican enforcement. For example you do an add that focuses on the low wages that illegal employers pay, the lack of benefits shifting costs onto local government, and then you point out that local Republican Bob failed to do anything about for many years. You could also do testimonials from employers who do hire legal employees talking about how illegal employers are undercutting them and the Republicans are not doing anything about it. The core focus would something like "illegal employment threatens middle class jobs". I think that could be done without resorting to jingoistic stereotyping.

The key is to focus on the illegal *employment* and the illegal *employers* rather than the illegal workers. The workers are of course part of the problem but I have a LOT more sympathy for the workers (who do for the most part come here out of economic need) than I do for the illegal employers who are gaming the system and manipulating the labor market.

Also, although I didnt go into details in my overly long original post, my concept of illegal immigration reform does allow for some form of amnesty for otherwise non-criminal illegals after a 5 year (or so) "implementation period" where we see if my ideas about cracking down on illegal employment work. If they do work and the level of illegal immigrations ratchets down substantially then I'm willing to grant amnesty to the illegals who are currently here and have put down some roots, so long as they are otherwise law abiding. You could factor that in to your add campaign - a staged amnesty at the end of the road, after illegal immigration falls below certain target goals. The idea being, this is not punitive retaliation against the poor immigrants but is in fact real policy reform.

As to the SoCal issue, you are largely right although I do believe this issue has a growing importance in other parts of the country. The economic impact is really large. It is a big part of what you have been complaining about in terms of a "low-wage-growth" recovery (or arguably, NO-wage-growth recovery, if you assess medians in the bottom 3 quintiles and adjust for inflation). I also think its part of a national trend - the reason that Wal Mart can find people to LINE UP to take the crappy low wage low benefit Wal Mart jobs all over the country is that the labor market is incredibly weak. Illegal employment is a big part of that, and thats a national problem not just a SoCal one.

[Athryn]

but this "new" immigration America has experienced, in a world with modern transportation and communications, seems much less motivated by ideals then economics.

Hate to tell you, but most immigration to America was motivated by economic rather than ideals. The Irish, the Chinese, and many other groups moved here and maintained their cultural identity separate from their nationalism.

[Jason McCullough]

Sharpe, I'm not arguing about the economic impacts; I agree. Ok, I disagree on the scope of impact - I'd say immigrant labor is a rounding error on low wage competition compared to stuff like the fed's stupid inflation obsession or the death of unions. Yes, it is a factor though.

It's just that it sounds like consensus good-old-days political policy, and I have no idea how you get that through the partisan landmine field we have now. Note the GOP response would probably be more of the "well just throw all the immigrants in jail" with no enforcement or followup, just like now.

[Saber Cherry]

Sharpe - I love your pro-Republican propaganda. However! The truth shows a different story altogether.

Democrats want to import Mexicans because they tend to vote Democrat. They don't care whether an influx of unskilled, uneducated labor is good or bad for the current residents, as long as it gives them votes.

Republicans want to import Mexicans because corporations (big AND small) and commercial farms bribe them to support Mexican importation. They don't care whether an influx of unskilled, uneducated labor is good or bad for the current residents, as long as it gives them money that they can turn into votes.

Business owners and corporate farmers want to import Mexicans because they think cheaply hiring Mexicans (subsidized by *other* people, who pay for their medical care, education, parks, roads, busses, low-income housing, etc) rather than giving real wages to tax-paying US Citizens is somehow a "great deal for everyone". They can abuse them, fire them, let them get their arms chopped off by dangerous equipment, and guess what - they have no rights! Send 'em back to Mexico, one arm smaller, and import a new one.

Illegal importation of unskilled, uneducated, subsidized labor is unsustainable in any country (unless you kill them before they can reproduce, as with China's Wall and Egypt's Pyramids) - this is not an opinion, but a pretty obvious fact; just as the Sun is unsustainable, and agricultural practices that deplete topsoil or subterranian water supplies are unsustainable. Slavery was abhorrent, but it was steady-state for one reason: The children of slaves remained slaves. When you move to a modern, institutionalized slavery system like the modern immigrant system in America and some parts of Europe and the Middle East, the children of slaves are no longer slaves, and the steady-state breaks. In order to to feed (or clean, mow lawns, build houses, and generally do all the dangerous and dirty work for) an entire country with slave labor, while making slave children into educated citizens who want their own slaves, the slave importation rate must increase exponentially with time.

Democrats and Republicans only care about votes. The current institutionalized slavery system in America and other modern countries that have "transcended" ditch-digging, bathroom-cleaning, and fruit-picking is repugnant and ultimately bad for everyone in the long run. In the short run, it is highly beneficial to the children of the immigrants (and often the immigrants themselves), but citizens should not be forced to do things by their politicians (e.g., subsidize Mexicans or Mediterranian North Africans) just to benefit some rich and powerful, or very very poor, third parties. That's what charities are for.

[Nellie]

unless you kill them before they can reproduce, as with China's Wall and Egypt's Pyramids

The Pyramids were built by a [probably] conscript work force not slaves/prisoners in some kind of concentration camp (work until you can't then we'll kill you) work ethic. I'm not sure whether they received state provided healthcare, vacation days or minimum wage, and I'm sure that health and safety regulations were pretty shoddy by today's standards but being part of the work force on a pyramid was far from the worst job to have in Pharoah's Egypt.

Maybe the US can solve it's immigration problem and raise some money towards paying for the keep of the 2million + population of the Prison system by bringing back chain gang style work forces to do the jobs currently done by Mexicans and other immigrants. You've got a massive untapped workforce that doesn't need directly paying so you can undercut what an illegal immigrant will accept (but a US citizen won't) for wages. If the jobs aren't there in the grey sector, why bother to make the journey?

[Chris Nahr]

I've read somewhere that the pyramids were built by farmers who had nothing else to do during the Nile flood. An employment program if you will. They were decently paid, too.

[Jason McCullough]

Saber, I can't tell if you're using transcendantly evolved sarcasm or just really hate the political parties.

[Jason McCullough]

There were enormous protests this weekend over the house bill making it a felony to be an illegal immigrant. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/25.html#a7665) Hmm.

[steve]

Democrats want to import Mexicans because they tend to vote Democrat. They don't care whether an influx of unskilled, uneducated labor is good or bad for the current residents, as long as it gives them votes.
That's changing, or at least Republicans are making significant inroads using abortion as a wedge issue.

[Enidigm]

This is odd that this isn't generating as much interest as other forum topics. This might be one of the biggest events in Mexican-American political history, as it's the first time that whole community has had a banner to rally around.

[Bob Cherub]

There were enormous protests this weekend over the house bill making it a felony to be an illegal immigrant. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/25.html#a7665) Hmm.

Hence the term "illegal".

Or as Democrats like to call it, "undocumented".

But but but.. these are law-abiding people (tm Katrina van den Heuvel). Apart from being in this country illegally that is.

[shift6]

What would that be, pray tell? If you can craft an ad that goes after illegal employment without pandering to the racist vote, ok, but I don't see it.
I'm going to say something that may get me in trouble here, but here goes: so what if you pander to the racist vote? If your newspaper ad says something like "protect American business by ending illegal immigration" (or something equally truthful and without hate), and the "racist vote" supports you, is that bad?

A related question: how is the "racist vote" not, as you might say, a rounding error these days in terms of eligible voters?

Also note that Southern California is the area of the country where this is the biggest deal; for the country in general, it's really not an issue.
Also: Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Florida. So including California, how many electrocal votes is that?

It's just that it sounds like consensus good-old-days political policy, and I have no idea how you get that through the partisan landmine field we have now. Note the GOP response would probably be more of the "well just throw all the immigrants in jail" with no enforcement or followup, just like now.
Governor Arnie (a poster-boy Republican) pushed to get driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants in CA.

There were enormous protests this weekend over the house bill making it a felony to be an illegal immigrant. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/25.html#a7665) Hmm.
They've also been toying with a law that a baby born in the US (who would currently be given full citizenship regardless) would have his citizenship revoked if both parents were undocumented. That's some fucked up shit right there.

[Enidigm]

Hate to tell you, but most immigration to America was motivated by economic rather than ideals. The Irish, the Chinese, and many other groups moved here and maintained their cultural identity separate from their nationalism.

Yea, sort of. Idealism was a big issue, although freedom=economic prosperity to most, perhaps.

But the disslocation was a huge issue. Many, maybe the vast majority, never heard from the old world again. They got in a boat, and from then on their ancestors would have virtually no information about their European past.

Huge illegal immigrant populations right next door to where they came from is a demographic and political situation America has never faced before. This huge illegal tidal wave has no parallel, other then it being about immigration. And among many Tejano communities, it's hard to say that they really immigrated at all. I knew and know guys that are hard working and speak good if accented english - but on weekends, they go to Mexico like others go to see Grandma, just no big deal. And to me it's not the issue of mobility but identity. If the work dried up, would they just head back down south? Easy come, easy go?

[i need some sleep. That was one too many huge-s].

[Toddy]

Also, today it doesn't matter if you came from next door. People can wander all over the globe and never give up the comforts of their country of origin. With the net and satellite TV, you can easily skip the whole melting pot thing. We're really witnessing the beginning of the end of the nation-state here. Borders are becoming less and less meaningful with each passing year.

[Jason McCullough]

Since it's so easy to not assimilate anymore, surely someone has some numbers showing this?

[Jason Becker]

Also note that Southern California is the area of the country where this is the biggest deal; for the country in general, it's really not an issue.

Uhh wrong.

[Sharpe]

As to the various points brought up: the illegal-immigration problem is at its peak in Southern California, that's true but is also a growing nationwide problem and the stats and demographics that if we don't reverse the trends, then the structural problems of a weak labor market and over-extended public services will spread to more parts of the country.

As to the issue of magnitude, I respectfully disagree. The decline of labor unions is a factor but is also a 2 way street: as the labor market (especially the bottom tiers) grows weaker, the bargaining of power of unions (and their ability to help members) is reduced. So weak unions are both a cause and an effect of a weak labor market. However, I don't think you can ignore the impact of illegal employment on the weakness of the labor market. Paul Krugman recently linked to a study that showed that low-end labor wages have been reduced by 8% by illegal immigration. Another study I saw linked shows that US high school drop-outs have seen a 7% reduction in wages as result of illegal immigration. And when you are living on $6/hr, 7% or 8% makes a BIG difference, since almost all your money goes to the basic necessities. Also I think most studies on the impact of illegal immigration make a huge error: they don't factor in the cost of the children of illegals, who are US citizens if born here. Although they are US citizens, the cost of educating those kids, the cost of health care and infrastructure for those kids is a consequential cost of illegal immigration. So you have to analyze that impact on our infrastructure and public programs as well as the direct costs of the illegals themselves. (Please note I'm not advocating we deny citizenship or rights to the kids; under the Constitution they are full citizens with full rights - I'm just saying that mathematically the costs for the kids of illegals are part of the cost of illegal immigration, which is typically not counted in most studies.)

Although I don't agree with everything he posts, Michael Lind of TPMCafe has been making some points that are in line with some of my ideas:

On cheap-labor liberalism. (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28381)

On what progressives should do about immigration. (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28335)

This immigration issue is just a part of what I see as a failure of the Democrats to really focus and articulate a worthwhile vision.

One of the common complaints about the Democrats is that they lack a core message. In Crashing the Gate, Kos & Armstrong talk about how the Republicans have a simple core message, an identifiable "brand". Even though they routinely enact policies that make a laughingstock of their brand, Republicans still claim to be a party of "lower taxes, economic growth, less regulation, and strong national security". It may be a near-total lie, but it's still a powerful brand.

I was thinking of how the Democrats could articulate their own brand, in a way that would attract votes and stay true to their core values. The problem is, any real Democratic "brand" that I would agree with would have to gore a few of the precious Democratic interest group's oxen.

Here's how I would articulate my version of a worthwhile Democratic brand: Democrats are for higher wages, better education and health care, economic growth for all American, protecting your personal rights, and a stable foreign policy.

Economically, I think "higher wages" is a key plank. And to really shift the labor market toward higher wages for a lot of Americans, you would have to BOTH do the traditionally liberal measure of raising the minimum wage and also bring market forces to bear by strengthening the labor market (reducing illegal immigration is one part of this) and also by loosening the credit supply (which might frighten large investors but has to be done IMO). One of my key ideas is that government intervention alone is rarely enough to get a major job done: its too static, too bureaucratic, and too subject to corruption and political manipulation. However, I don't agree that government has NO role: I want a mixture of reasonable regulation and market forces. So higher wages via both a higher wage and a stronger labor market is my goal.

Second, better education and health care would require a strange reversal: for education I think we have too much bureaucracy and government intervention - too many earmarks, too much top-down micro-management, too much administrative costs, and not enough flexibility and reward for performance. Better education to me would mean taking on the old-school teachers' unions and enacting merit pay, (not solely test-score based, but based on actual performance reviews), and also taking on state and local bureaucracies to equalize funding on a per-student basis and getting as much funding as possible into the class room. Charter schools, and well-designed voucher programs could be a part of this. The reversal is that in health care I want to see more government involvement. I've come to believe that our current hodgepodge of public/private health care is highly inefficient. I don't support a Canada or UK-style socialized medicine system (too monopolistic and bureaucratic for my tastes) but there are several good single payor (single payor is different than socialized/nationalized medicine, a distinction most don't understand) and also multi-payor / mandatory coverage plans in various countries. I would like to see us move to a single payor system with a common risk pool of government insurance, but with the actual health care provided by private providers (something like Medicare), but with an option for citizens to purchase additional coverage and services. Again a mix of public and private tools.

Economic growth for all Americans means revising the tax code in a way that makes the tax system more efficient and is more fair to most Americans. I would move towards a tax system that is simpler, with fewer brackets and less deductions, and no preferential treatment for dividends, capital gains or inheiritences (ie ALL income from wages, inheiritences, captial gains, dividends, etc would be taxed the same way). Both Demos and Repubs hate this idea b/c tax perks are one of the main pieces of meat they can throw to their contributors, but a simpler, less perk and loophole-filled tax code would be a LOT better for America.

Protecting personal rights means of course the common liberal rights associated with democrats (gay rights, abortion rights, minority rights etc) but I would try to be as inclusive and non-judgemental about this plank as is possible. (IE calling Christians a bunch of morons is both offensive and counter productive). Also, this plank should include privacy rights and financial records rights which are increasingly important. Opt-in rules as a default for most financial records, more personal control of credit scores, etc, are both good for the average citizen and political winners IMO.

Lastly, a more stable foreign policy is already being articulated by the Democrats (http://www.democrats.gov/rs.html). The Senate Democrats (http://democrats.senate.gov/agenda/real_security/) have an even more hard hitting piece.

Articulate something like that, with reasonable policies to back it up and the Demos have IMO a strong winning platform. You'll note that it doesn't focus on whining, victimizimation, PC, abortion-at-all costs, where's my hand-out-for-my-identity-group-BS. The Demos need to refocus, and immigration is one of the issues I'd like them to start on.

[Jason McCullough]

Allow me to summarize my rebuttal: without a 60% majority in both houses, I don't see how the Democrats can reform immigration without either getting politcally killed in the process or pandering to racists.

Let the GOP tear themselves apart over it.

[Sharpe]

Again, I respectfully disagree. Improving enforcement vs illegal employers is actually quite easy. One thing to keep in mind is how pitiful our enforcement efforts are right now. Improving enforcement is easy b/c we spend so little and do so little right now.

According to the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-workplace30mar30,0,2142336.story?track=tothtml):

The number of federal workers who focus on finding illegal immigrants on the job has dropped in recent years, from 240 in 1999 to 90 in 2003.

Think about that. We have a minimum of 12 million illegals, about 2/3 of whom work. That's about 8 million illegal workers spread out over several hundred thousand employers. To regulate them we had at peak 240 personnel (thats 1 federal agent per 33,000 workers) and now we have 90 (thats 1 federal agent per 90,000 workers). Imagine being a federal agent with a 90,000 file case load to investigate the identity and documentation of those employees. You can see why the following is true:

Along with the drop in staff numbers has come a decline in employer sanctions. The number of notices of intent to fine issued to companies that knowingly hired an illegal worker or improperly filled out an I-9 form plummeted from 417 in 1999 to three in 2004.

Last year, 127 employers were convicted for hiring undocumented workers — a small fraction of the thousands of businesses thought to be using illegal labor

And here's the capper:

And less than 1% of the money devoted to immigration enforcement is directed to crackdowns at the workplace, with the overwhelming majority spent at the nation's borders.

Right now we are only spending 1% of our immigration enforcement funds on illegal employment. You could increase that tenfold and only increase immigration spending a mere 10%. We are doing such a poor job now that its *easy* to do better.

We don't need 60% majorities, we just need a willingness to bite the hand of the big illegal-employer contributors. And if the Demos are too greedy for campaign money to do that, then they are not the party of middle and working class Americans.

[CindySue22]

Also note that Southern California is the area of the country where this is the biggest deal; for the country in general, it's really not an issue.

Just a note here (haven't read the whole thread yet), this is an issue in any major, and many not so major, city in America. I drive a truck OTR, and while making pickups and deliveries all over the country, I would estimate that 20-25% of the time, I will go into a factory of some sort or another where the question of "Where is the shipping/receiving office?" will be met by a blank look and shrug of the shoulders. And where 95-98% of the workforce "on the floor" will be Hispanic.

On to read the rest of the thread.

[Flowers]

Just a note here (haven't read the whole thread yet), this is an issue in any major, and many not so major, city in America. I drive a truck OTR, and while making pickups and deliveries all over the country, I would estimate that 20-25% of the time, I will go into a factory of some sort or another where the question of "Where is the shipping/receiving office?" will be met by a blank look and shrug of the shoulders. And where 95-98% of the workforce "on the floor" will be Hispanic.

On to read the rest of the thread.
I can tell you, I have seen the english speaking people who can't find jobs unloading trucks in this country. If we had to fire the Mexican guys and hire those assholes, this country would grind to a fucking halt.

Learn2Spanish.

[Lunch of Kong]

Hold on. So if companies replaced all their illegal workers with legal workers at higher wages, won't prices rise? Won't our exports fall? How is that a good thing for me?

If I believed the government would reduce my taxes or use the extra $$$ to pay down the 8 trillion debt, maybe I would agree to this, but that's not what is going to happen, is it?

I guess rywill's words are just going WOOSH over my head.

Increasing the cost of our goods makes us less able to compete in global markets, and thus hurts our GDP. Yes? No?

Is the argument that expelling illegal workers will free up billions of extra tax dollars that the U.S. government won't have to spent on social services, and that this money will somehow trickle down to benefit american citizens directly instead of being siphoned off into the defense/nation rebuilding budget?

[CindySue22]

I can tell you, I have seen the english speaking people who can't find jobs unloading trucks in this country. If we had to fire the Mexican guys and hire those assholes, this country would grind to a fucking halt.

Learn2Spanish.

I realize I am hated here (it's not paranoia if it's true), but what does that have to do with this thread?

[Stroker Ace]

I wouldn't categorize the general distaste as *hate*, Cindy. Don't oversell yourself.

[CindySue22]

I wouldn't categorize the general distaste as *hate*, Cindy. Don't oversell yourself.

Semantics, but OK.

[Flowers]

I realize I am hated here (it's not paranoia if it's true), but what does that have to do with this thread?

If you need to communicate with people where you work, take a lesson from yourself, do what you are suggesting those Mexicans do. Learn the language. If they are illegal aliens as you suggest, you have a lot more time and money to devote to becoming bilingual than they do. Capitalize on that. Buy some Spanish tapes and listen to them on the long haul. Make yourself more useful and worth more money than the next guy.

[Jason McCullough]

So if companies replaced all their illegal workers with legal workers at higher wages, won't prices rise? Won't our exports fall? How is that a good thing for me?

Not really. Why can companies not raise their prices now, but can if their prices go up?

[CindySue22]

If you need to communicate with people where you work, take a lesson from yourself, do what you are suggesting those Mexicans do. Learn the language. If they are illegal aliens as you suggest, you have a lot more time and money to devote to becoming bilingual than they do. Capitalize on that. Buy some Spanish tapes and listen to them on the long haul. Make yourself more useful and worth more money than the next guy.

What? While I agree that being bilingual is always a good thing, I don't think it should be a requirement for an American, born in this country, so that he/she can accomodate an illegal alien. Please explain the rational behind your suggestion?

Jaysus, I realize I am not the brightest bulb in the room, but sometimes replies such as your's leave me reeling.

[CindySue22]

Roger Wong sez

How is that a good thing for me?

And therein lies the problem-"meism", not what is good for the country, as a whole.

[Mike O'Malley]

You do know that we don't have an official language in America, don't you?
So there's no "requirement" that aliens learn English to accomodate YOU, oh natural-born citizen.
The rationale behind Flowers' suggestion seems to be that being able to speak Spanish is a skill that would set you apart from your peers and hence make you more marketable and able to command a higher wage.

He never suggested that it was a requirement. Being a natural-born citizen doesn't protect you from the realities of American demographics; you have no "right" to expect English and every reason to broaden your horizons.

[Lunch of Kong]

Not really. Why can companies not raise their prices now, but can if their prices go up?

How I'm perceiving this is that our manufacturing industries today are able to survive because they are able to get cheap labor. At an increased labor cost, which is what the end result is when you get rid of the cheap labor, the businesses would be unable to survive unless they raised their prices to offset the increase in labor costs.

So, will dissolving the cheap labor pool push them above this limit?

[Lunch of Kong]

Roger Wong sez
And therein lies the problem-"meism", not what is good for the country, as a whole.

What's good for me is good for the country as a whole.

Things good for Roger:

No national debt
More exports than imports


Things bad for Roger:

Paying more for groceries
Watching the tax money saved from social program budget cuts go into the general fund and get disproportionately allocated to the defense budget


Those two lists comprise the entirety of the concerns I expressed in my previous post.

[CindySue22]

You do know that we don't have an official language in America, don't you?
So there's no "requirement" that aliens learn English to accomodate YOU, oh natural-born citizen.
The rationale behind Flowers' suggestion seems to be that being able to speak Spanish is a skill that would set you apart from your peers and hence make you more marketable and able to command a higher wage.

He never suggested that it was a requirement. Being a natural-born citizen doesn't protect you from the realities of American demographics; you have no "right" to expect English and every reason to broaden your horizons.

FYI, I am "marketable" enough right now, and this appears to have gone from an "an illegal immigration and the Democrat's response" thread to a "rant on Cindy" thread.

"You" guys will NEVER win an election if you keep marginalizing workers.

edit: American citizen workers, that is. Unless you are going for what all the "right wing pundits" say, you are just pandering to the Hispanic community to try and gain that voting block. Now, that wouldn't be true, would it?

[Ben]

Cindy- Like 95% of the jobs that illegals take are terrible, terrible jobs. I didn't want to pick lettuce for $6/hr, so I don't really give a shit what language the guy that picked that lettuce speaks. People whose lives would be improved if they could get a lettuce picking job don't vote.

[Jason McCullough]

How I'm perceiving this is that our manufacturing industries today are able to survive because they are able to get cheap labor. At an increased labor cost, which is what the end result is when you get rid of the cheap labor, the businesses would be unable to survive unless they raised their prices to offset the increase in labor costs.

So, will dissolving the cheap labor pool push them above this limit?

Sure, it will raise the cost of manufacturing and shift jobs from that sector to other sectors, but that's not the same thing as "immigration limitations will raise the price of everything." I don't see how that would even work - it's not like customers are going to say "ok, we'll happily pay more money for your stuff because you tell us your costs have gone up." The most profitable price point is independent of production costs.

[Sharpe]

Roger, a couple of points:

Yes, a raise in lower tier wages will have a modest inflationary effect on prices but its less than you might expect, for two reasons. One, lower tier workers just don't make that much money - they are large in number but low in total income. Last I heard the bottom 40% of the labor market only brought in 15% of the wages. So you could jack up their wages by a relative 10% and it would affect total national wages by only about 1.5%, which is not a huge jump, especially as any rise in wages will occur over a period of years, most likely (theres a lot of slack in the labor market in the form of underemployed workers). Two, its my understanding there is good statistical evidence that lower tier wage increases get translated into consumption at a very high rate and thus generate additional demand which adds a growth effect, offsetting all or most of the growth loss from higher labor costs. (This is only true to a point - my understanding is that cities which have raised wages to a minimum of $7 or $8 per hour have seen little job loss but cities which have tried "living wages" of $12 or $13 have experienced some job loss). Overall, I'd like to see us try reducing illegal immigration. Keep in mind that if we find the labor market gets too tight and inflationary, we have an EASY fix: just increase the number of legal visas we give out. We can open the spiggot of legal immigration at will, and as much as we want, if we find that we do in fact need more labor. Right now we just have an unending stream of unregulated cheap labor, which is very bad IMO.

Also, Roger, you mentioned exports. It is my understanding that most illegals work in internal-market service type jobs, and relatively few in export type jobs. And although there are some illegals in light manufacturing, its my understanding those comparnies mostly sell to internal US markets: the international market is already dominated by super-cheap labor from China etc, which is far cheaper than even the cheapest illegal-labor can get in America.

So yeah there will be a small negative in terms of some mild inflationary pressure. But there will be a large postive offset: higher wages for the poorest Americans, which IMO is a social good by itself. Plus there is likely to be some "ripple effect" on lower-middle and middle class wages. Plus there is likely to be a reduction in strain on resources in terms of education, health care, transportation, etc.

Unless you are a very wealthy type owning a company (or lots of stocks in companies) that benefits from illegal labor, I strongly feel that the self interest is actually in reducing illegal immigration.

Keep in mind that if we really need cheap labor, there is a near infinite supply of legal immigrants lined up for visas, and more will line up if we pump out more visas. Having a supply we control is vastly preferable to the unregulated mess we have now.

[Sharpe]

One more thing, I don't actually think we export much manufactured product that is produced by cheap labor. Out exports are mostly the products of high-skill industries like high tech, entertainment (well, arguably high-skil :) ), and software. I don't believe we sell many cheapo widgets on the international market.

[CindySue22]

Cindy- Like 95% of the jobs that illegals take are terrible, terrible jobs. I didn't want to pick lettuce for $6/hr, so I don't really give a shit what language the guy that picked that lettuce speaks. People whose lives would be improved if they could get a lettuce picking job don't vote.

Last I am going to say on this subject.

You, and those who think like you, really, really, have no fucking clue about the "blue collar" class, do you? You are Republicans in Hillary's clothing!

I don't really give a shit what language the guy that picked that lettuce speaks.

That speaks volumes for your so-called "progressiveness".

[Lunch of Kong]

Thanks, Sharpe.

[Lunch of Kong]

You, and those who think like you, really, really, have no fucking clue about the "blue collar" class, do you?

Most of the illegal aliens don't work in the blue collar class. They work in the shit-brown collar class.

[Jason McCullough]

Molly Ivins has an amusing article up. (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/34256/)


Anyway, it was '83 or some year right around there when we held The Fence climbing contest. See, people talked about building The Fence back then, too. The Fence along the Mexican border. To keep Them out.
At the time, the proposal was quite specific -- a 17-foot cyclone fence with bob wire at the top. So a test fence was built at Terlingua, and the First-Ever Terlingua Memorial Over, Under or Through Mexican Fence Climbing Contest took place. Prize: a case of Lone Star beer. Winning time: 30 seconds.

I tell this story to make the one single point about the border and immigration we know to be true: The Fence will not work. No fence will work. The Great darn Wall of China will not work. Do not build a fence. It will not work. They will come anyway. Over, under or through.
Some of you think a fence will work because Israel has one. Israel is a very small country. Anyone who says a fence can fix this problem is a demagogue and an ass.

Numero Two-o, should you actually want to stop Mexicans and OTMs (other than Mexicans) from coming to the United States, here is how to do it: Find an illegal worker at a large corporation. This is not difficult -- brooms and mops are big tip-offs. Then put the CEO of that corporation in prison for two or more years for violating the law against hiring illegal workers.

Got it? You can also imprison the corporate official who actually hired the illegal and, just to make sure, put some Betty Sue Billups -- housewife, preferably one with blonde hair in a flip -- in the joint for a two-year stretch for hiring a Mexican gardener. Thus Americans are reminded that the law says it is illegal to hire illegal workers and that anyone who hires one is responsible for verifying whether or not his or her papers are in order. If you get fooled and one slips by you, too bad, you go to jail anyway. When there are no jobs for illegal workers, they do not come. Got it?

Goes into detail about the groundhog day nature of the immigration discussion; the bracero thing back in the 1950s wasn't much different.

[Flowers]

FYI, I am "marketable" enough right now, and this appears to have gone from an "an illegal immigration and the Democrat's response" thread to a "rant on Cindy" thread.

"You" guys will NEVER win an election if you keep marginalizing workers.

edit: American citizen workers, that is. Unless you are going for what all the "right wing pundits" say, you are just pandering to the Hispanic community to try and gain that voting block. Now, that wouldn't be true, would it?

Oh Cindy, you are such a lip service Republican. You replied before you read the thread, and you complained that people don'ta speaka your lanhgwage. Republicans are supposed to be good on business issues. Asking for protection from competition is what people who favor controlled economies are supposed to be doing. Having our friends from the south come here for a better life than they have in their homeland, to work a job we can't get American Nationals to do is a win/win situation. Mexican Nationals don't consume the same kind of resources that American Nationals on disability and unemployment consume. They keep our costs down, they keep us from turning into a socialist worker's paradise where people riot at the thought of getting fired for sleeping on the job. This is America, not your mom's leathery teat. This country was made great by wave after wave of immigrants. If you come to America and want to work, that's as American apple pie to me.

Building a fence and chasing people out of the country costs tons of money and all it does is address some bigot's vanity. It doesn't help us control costs, it doesn't get the roads cleared or uncrowd schools. It certainly isn't going to make anyone here in America any richer. And you know what Republicans like yourself are supposed to say, "If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense."

[Ben]

You, and those who think like you, really, really, have no fucking clue about the "blue collar" class, do you? You are Republicans in Hillary's clothing!

Wha? I grew up pretty freaking poor, Cindy, not that it matters. Illegals take terrible jobs. Jobs that high school dropouts and drug addicts would turn down because they can do better.


That speaks volumes for your so-called "progressiveness".

???

[wisefool]

How I'm perceiving this is that our manufacturing industries today are able to survive because they are able to get cheap labor. At an increased labor cost, which is what the end result is when you get rid of the cheap labor, the businesses would be unable to survive unless they raised their prices to offset the increase in labor costs.

So, will dissolving the cheap labor pool push them above this limit?

I live in New York City. Many of my close family members have worked for 'garment factories'. Still have sort-of-cousins and family friends that do. They're actually legal immigrants, but I bring it up regarding the labor pool issue.

Remember when the wealthier nations were still called the "Industrialized world"? Not anymore! The truth is much wealth creation is no longer in factories requiring labor in our service economy. It is a big problem for all post-industrial nations to find work for their lower-skilled population.

Market liberalization is supposed to be most effective if it can cut quotas on farming and textiles so the poor in the world can advance economically. It probably even makes sense. For example, import sugar where it can grow easily instead of draining more swamps in florida and grow it or something. French love their farmers, Japanese love their farmers, and Americans have florida, california, and the honest farmers in the midwest.

Anyway, I remember around the late 90s there was an "anti-sweatshop" movement popular in college campuses. I'm not sure which union movement funded the whole drive. They were asking for better wages, health insurance, stuff like that.

Anyway, the way it works is you get paid by piece. If you work really fast, you make more money. It's considered good work by the immigrant population (your alternative being a waiter) that does not speak English. Their children, do of course, learn English, earn degrees, etc. But for these people there really are no other jobs. What do you want them to do, apply for medicaid?

I'm not sure what you're supposed to do. I was pretty much a commie as a teen, reading Z magazine, imagining one could crusade for justice for the oppressed underclass. But while free market dogma has some brainwashing, there's still fundamental truths to it: Pushing wages will drive already-marginal sweatshops out of business (I think there's still a few garment shops around New York, for really fast turnaround samples.)

Man, I can't believe I'm sticking up for "the Man" heh.

--

As an alternative immigration policy I could offer the example of Canada. They have a selective immigration policy that favors skilled and well-off immigrants. Lots of people from Hong Kong fleeing commie rule went there for example. I believe there's a few categories. One is if you had skills that were in demand (such as doctors, nurses, engineers, etc), another if you would open a business and provide jobs for at least x other canadians. Problem with the second clause is the x jobs tend to go to their own family members.

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe the Democrats are just fine (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/10/AR2006041001750_2.html).

But in the new Post-ABC News poll, completed Sunday, 50 percent of respondents said they trusted the Democrats to better handle the immigration issue, while 38 percent trusted Republicans. A third of Americans approved of the president's handling of the immigration issue, while 61 percent disapproved. Only his handling of gas prices showed lower approval ratings.

[claybob]

I came across No Tax Deductibility for Illegals (http://frum.nationalreview.com/) as a suggestion for a solution.

[DeepT]

If illegals are, you know, ILLEGAL, why is there such a mild stance against business that use them? Just levy heavy fines against the businesses that use them. How about $25,000 per infraction?

Remove the border patrols (for illegal immigrants), move them to looking for businesses that use them (which are much harder to hide then a Mexican). Fine the shit out of these businesses. Then either the businesses go under, or they stop hiring illegal immigrants. If the jobs go away, the immigrants go away. Problem solved.

[MikeJ]

If the jobs go away, the immigrants go away. Problem solved.

But if the illegal employment goes away, so does the lobbying money. Enforcing the existing laws is good, but so is money. That's why it's called money.

[Jason McCullough]

As much of a silver bullet as employer fines sounds like, it's getting a bit close to "a crime with no victim"; both sides are voluntary participants.

[MikeSofaer]

This (http://www.nps.gov/home/homestead_act.html) is highly relevant, but will Jason read it?

[Simpilot]

Personally, I think the only way we Republicans can stay in the White House is if Hillary Clinton gets the Dem nomination. That woman's just crazy!

[DeepT]

As much of a silver bullet as employer fines sounds like, it's getting a bit close to "a crime with no victim"; both sides are voluntary participants.

No, they arn't, or at least I do not know what you mean by both sides. I put busniesses who hire them and the illegals on the same side. The other side is the laws of the land. Both sides are not vouluntary participants.

I am not making a judgement one way or another weather or not we should make it easier or not for people to immigrate, however should we decide, in our infinite wisdom, that it must remain illegal and the rules remain similar as they are now, then this is the only real way to solve this problem.

To make an analogy:

We have few chunks of cheese sitting around. They are big and do not move around. There are also roaches who run around and eat the cheese. We do not want roaches in our kitchen. We can do one of two actions. Hire guys with mallets to chase the roaches around in the dark (if you turn on the lights, they hide) or protect the cheese by moving somewhere safe, putting a cover over it, or just having someone watch the cheese and see if any roaches are on it, and if there are, give it a good whack.

The current methodology is the first method. It doesn't work.

Oh, I am not saying immigrants are roaches, I am just using the cheese / roach thing as a method of expressing a concept. Please do not read more into this analogy then that.

[Simpilot]

As much of a silver bullet as employer fines sounds like, it's getting a bit close to "a crime with no victim"; both sides are voluntary participants.

Business and illegals being on the same side is meaningless. They are both on the opposite side of the laws of the land. Those laws exist to protect the rights and property of American citizens and those who are here legally.

[Jason McCullough]

Guess I wasn't clear - I actually think it'd be great if an employer fine solution would work. I'm just not so sure after reading more on it, because it is a "everyone agrees except the government" transaction. The history of gambling, drugs, and prostitution enforcement isn't encouraging.

Not so sure on the homestead act relevance.