What in the heck happened with the Immigration Bill?

[JeffL]

OK - who has pictures of senators with farm animals?

When the Immigration Bill first was made public, it became extremely obvious, to the chagrin and surprise of the Senators who put it together in their secret chambers, that America was overwhelmingly against it. Zogby, Gallup, every poll you could see showed that Americans thought this was just dumb and wrong. Whether you or I think so is irrelevant, it was so clear that America was against it that most of the Senators distanced themselves a long way away from it, and Cokie and company on Meet the Press discussed how McCain had been hurt even more by his backing of the bill. Lots of discussions in the media on how Senators were making sure they got away from this thing lest it hurt them in their next election. Reid quickly gave up on trying to get it brought back up when it was clear they wouldn't get anywhere near close to the votes needed. It was seen by the American public as just another example of how out of touch and wrong-headed Bush is.

Then today - it clears the test vote 64-35. What the heck? It's not like there were substantial changes made to make it more palatable to the majority of people opposing it, who say the laws on hiring illegals, border security, etc. are already in place and not being enforced and that we don't need new ones, and oppose to a carte blanche legalization of the illegals here. In fact, the Democrats want to add amendments that make it even easier for more folks to come in quickly and bypass the current process, which is the part that Americans have registered their displeasure with.

So - whether you personally agree with the bill or not, what in the heck happened in Washington to take something that all the talking heads have declared a massive miscalculation and potentially very damaging to supporters and suddenly give it a very large passing test vote???? Who cut what deals with whom?

[Jason McCullough]

I think this is one of those issues were people claim they're deeply concerned, but they don't actually vote on it. Business, however, pays much closer attention.

[Midnight Son]

Who's gonna mow my lawn, dammit?

[Glenn]

Zogby, Gallup, every poll you could see showed that Americans thought this was just dumb and wrong.What in the hell are you talking about? You're completely wrong. I even checked the polls just now to confirm the fact that you're completely wrong.

The bill almost sank because the opposition is extremely loud and motivated, but they're absolutely in the minority.

[JeffL]

What in the hell are you talking about? You're completely wrong. I even checked the polls just now to confirm the fact that you're completely wrong.

The bill almost sank because the opposition is extremely loud and motivated, but they're absolutely in the minority.

Really? My bad then. I didn't read the polls, just heard Sam Donaldson this weekend say, specifically, that Zogby, Gallup, and USA Today/(network) showed America was overwhelmingly against the bill. My bad for not checking up on Sam!

EDIT: Zogby says that only 38% of America has a favorable view of the legislation. I'll direct quote it:

"When specifically prompted about the quality of the new immigration reform bill, 38% of Americans conveyed that they had a favorable view of the legislative proposal."

They also say that 64% want the laws to be MORE restrictive and protective.

"Only 22% of respondents said that illegal immigrants are a benefit to the country."

That was what it said 22 seconds ago.

Edit again: Gallup says that only 11% strongly or somewhat favor the bill vs. 30% who strongly or somwhat oppose it - but he also says a lot of people feel they don't know enough about it.

Neither say America strongly favors the bill at all.

[Glenn]

After a more intensive check:

I totally withdraw my objection. All the specifics of the bill still have majority support, but it appears you're correct about the bill in general*, which is a total reversal of several weeks ago. I yield to the power of relentless negative publicity.

*fuck you, general public, you bunch of stupid cunts.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Remember, jeff is REALLY, REALLY LIBERAL (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1013329&postcount=70) on "some issues."

Jeez man. Just wear the uniform. That, or call yourself a libertarian.

[Midnight Son]

Glenn, are you a member of the Walton family?

[JeffL]

Remember, jeff is REALLY, REALLY LIBERAL (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1013329&postcount=70) on "some issues."

Jeez man. Just wear the uniform. That, or call yourself a libertarian.

Why are you so hung up on putting some label on me? What has that got to do with the actual topic?

Wanna talk about presidential candidates? I'm not only sending money to Obama, I'm doing some work. World hunger? I think we as a nation should make it our responsibility to use our riches to abolish people starving to death around the world when it is totally uneccessary. Death Penalty? Think it's wrong. Health care? No one in this country should go bankrupt because of a medical problem, no one in this country should not get the same health care that the rich/insured can get, and the country should pay for it. I have been to Uganda on aid visits and I still have tears in my eyes when I think about what's going on with the children there and how the world and the U.S. and the U.N. are callously ignoring that.

Abortion? I think it is wrong, I think it is killing an unborn baby. Democrats? I think a lot of them are scum and hypocrytes. Republicans? They've abandoned the principles of small government and become a generally corrupt organization and need a complete overhaul.

Etc. Put whatever label you want on me, if that helps with the discussion, I'd rather just focus on the discussions and the back and forth of the ideas than whether I'm this or that label.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I don't like your Above It All posturing when your recent posts have the same titles as the latest blog entries at Power Line. (I made that up just now, so you don't have to bother checking.) It pisses me off when people refuse to accurately self-identify in favor of mushmouthed talk about being all over the political map. You're not.

[Midnight Son]

Democrats? I think a lot of them are scum and hypocrytes. Republicans? They've abandoned the principles of small government and become a generally corrupt organization and need a complete overhaul.


Oh, so Republicans aren't scum and hypocrites? Thanks for clearing that up!

[Linoleum]

And while you quibble among yourselves, Congress on both sides of the aisle just gave the American public the finger.

If you're a Democrat, you can smile because the backlash is going to hurt the GOP worse. On the other hand, your party is taking that shit-eating grin as an excuse to, well, feed you shit.

I hope this causes a bunch of incumbents that have gotten too cozy to get rousted in primaries. I don't care about the seats switching sides, I just want them out.

[noun]

And while you quibble among yourselves, Congress on both sides of the aisle just gave the American public the finger.

No doubt. I hate what BOTH parties have become.

[JeffL]

Oh, so Republicans aren't scum and hypocrites? Thanks for clearing that up!

I kinda thought that was obvious here and in the comment that they've become a corrupt organization.

[JeffL]

I don't like your Above It All posturing when your recent posts have the same titles as the latest blog entries at Power Line. (I made that up just now, so you don't have to bother checking.) It pisses me off when people refuse to accurately self-identify in favor of mushmouthed talk about being all over the political map. You're not.

Whatever. I don't even know what Power Line is, so I wouldn't know what to check (I don't read blogs, if that's a blog.) And I don't particularly care to self identify/label myself, for whatever purpose that serves, so feel free to label me whatever you like if that makes you less angry.

[Midnight Son]

I kinda thought that was obvious here and in the comment that they've become a corrupt organization.

Right, but you still made them sound better than the Damn-ocrats. We all know both sides are totally corrupt.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Whatever. I don't even know what Power Line is, so I wouldn't know what to check (I don't read blogs, if that's a blog.) And I don't particularly care to self identify/label myself, for whatever purpose that serves, so feel free to label me whatever you like if that makes you less angry.

Yeah, and feel free to frame the whole situation as some kind of inexplicable hostility on my part. I'm jealous of your freedoms.

The structure of the larger pattern I'm seeing here doesn't integrate well into the board's thread system, meaning that your recent posts (and consequently this spat) are scattered across several different pages. Awkward.

[JeffL]

Right, but you still made them sound better than the Damn-ocrats. We all know both sides are totally corrupt.

LOL! I don't know if you are tongue in cheek here or not. I would guess that a lot, if not most, people here do not believe there's anything but good on the Democratic side. The absolute craptacular corruption of the current Republican side makes them look relatively less corrupt, but I don't think we should accept that "only kinda corrupt" is acceptable just because one group has become totally corrupt (and incompetent - at least Nixon was corrupt but pretty sharp, in an evil genius way.)

[Bob Cherub]

lol.. I love it when you guys bash jeff for being who he is. It's so cool! You guys are the best!

Best at being fucking idiots that is.

Hang tough jeff.

[Bob Cherub]

Yeah, great job on the fact checking too Glenn.

[Raife]

Yeah, great job on the fact checking too Glenn.

Dude, your entire posting history is one bad fact check.

[Glenn]

Yeah, great job on the fact checking too Glenn.I was wrong, I apologized. I'm sure you'd do the same.

[JeffL]

OK - dudes and dudedetts, feel free to bash me all you want. I just was trying to figure out why it was important for some people to put some clear label on me and why anyone thought I was trying to avoid any label.

Glen, why do you feel that Americans would like this bill if not for a lot of negative PR? My perception is that Americans in general just don't like the idea of giving 12 million or so illegal aliens instant legal status. Is that really surprising? Sure, they like the concepts of being tougher on employers hiring illegals (though I'm not sure the right approach to that is "we'll just make them all legal with the stroke of a pen") and tighter borders, but the laws are already there for those items, they just need to be enforced. I'd be very surprised if you asked the average American "Do you think we should make illegal aliens instantly legal?" the answer would be yes. And yes, I do understand that the process will be that if they want a green card the head of household needs to go back home and file some papers, but from my understanding they don't have to do that if they don't want to - they can just keep working the way they always have, just now legally.

I'd guess that there will be quite a surge of people across the border when it appears this will pass. Also - does this apply to all aliens? I've got a chemist in my group from India who has been trying for 4 years to get his green card, and it's been extremely difficult and expensive. Also a Ph.D. from China who is in the arduous process. Do these guys get a break too? That's not a sarcastic comment, I'm genuinely curious as to how they can take advantage of this to shortcut the years it's taking them to get green cards.

[Raife]

OK - dudes and dudedetts, feel free to bash me all you want. I just was trying to figure out why it was important for some people to put some clear label on me and why anyone thought I was trying to avoid any label.

A UPC speeds up the sales process. Without one, the cashier has to enter all of your information by hand. Stop fighting it.

[Midnight Son]

lol.. I love it when you guys bash jeff for being who he is. It's so cool! You guys are the best!

Best at being fucking idiots that is.

Hang tough jeff.

Bob! You're back! How's the half-way house?

[Midnight Son]

LOL! I don't know if you are tongue in cheek here or not. I would guess that a lot, if not most, people here do not believe there's anything but good on the Democratic side. The absolute craptacular corruption of the current Republican side makes them look relatively less corrupt, but I don't think we should accept that "only kinda corrupt" is acceptable just because one group has become totally corrupt (and incompetent - at least Nixon was corrupt but pretty sharp, in an evil genius way.)

We agree on this.

[Glenn]

Glen, why do you feel that Americans would like this bill if not for a lot of negative PR?Two n's. Because if you go back to last month (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html?ex=1337745600&en=ac69d307847180bf&ei=5088&partner=r), the provisions of the bill were still quite popular. Personally, I blame the GOP Presidential candidates; I think the general public doesn't really know anything about the bill or the issue and they're just forming their opinion based on what the political consensus seems to be.

I'd be very surprised if you asked the average American "Do you think we should make illegal aliens instantly legal?" the answer would be yes."Instantly" is BS in this case, but 32% of Americans are in favor of amnesty, and the number goes up significantly if you pitch the definition of amnesty to people without using the word.

Bravo, American educational system.

And yes, I do understand that the process will be that if they want a green card the head of household needs to go back home and file some papers, but from my understanding they don't have to do that if they don't want to - they can just keep working the way they always have, just now legally.In response to the bolded part, no, they can't start the process towards legalization until they touchback and pay a $5k fine. "No shortcuts" was a major part of the compromise that brought in moderate Republicans.

[JeffL]

Two n's. Because if you go back to last month (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/us/25poll.html?ex=1337745600&en=ac69d307847180bf&ei=5088&partner=r), the provisions of the bill were still quite popular. Personally, I blame the GOP Presidential candidates; I think the general public doesn't really know anything about the bill or the issue and they're just forming their opinion based on what the political consensus seems to be.

"Instantly" is BS in this case, but 32% of Americans are in favor of amnesty, and the number goes up significantly if you pitch the definition of amnesty to people without using the word.

Bravo, American educational system.

In response to the bolded part, no, they can't start the process towards legalization until they touchback and pay a $5k fine. "No shortcuts" was a major part of the compromise that brought in moderate Republicans.

Hmm. Well, as discussed in a previous thread, the difficult thing here is that whole issue re: polling and how you phrase things to get different answers. It's difficult to figure out just what most Americans really think on this due to how you ask the questions. The Gallup showed that over 50% of the people responded that they didn't understand the bill well enough to have an informed opinion. Which, actually, I take as a good sign - most Americans are admitting, despite PR from both sides, that they just haven't been given enough good info to form an informed opinion.

As for the bolded part - as I read in what I can find of the actual bill, as soon as the bill is signed everyone becomes legal. They are just at a certain point in the process, but they are legal. To progress to a green card, they have to go back to their home and fill out some papers and pay (but I seriously doubt we'll actually make people come up with $5000.) But they aren't required to do that - the bill, as I read it, seems to say that they can continue working with their new legal status.

As for amnesty - why is that a bad or "wrong" word? If the people are currently breaking the law, and you say "OK, now you're legal without going through the process" why is that not amnesty? Isn't it by definition?

Again, though, I'm curious how this impacts people who have been working for years through the legal process. If our Indian employee has been working for 4 years to get his papers, and spending a ton of money on lawyers, and Hui is looking at a 3 year minimum process for her legal papers, how can they take advantage of this to shortcut the process? I'm serious - I'd like to figure out how they can get a free ride here (I guarantee you that if all they had to do was fly home and pay $5000 they'd do that in a flash, compared to what they are having to go through now.)

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I just was trying to figure out why it was important for some people to put some clear label on me and why anyone thought I was trying to avoid any label.

I can't seem to find the post that originally pissed me off, which is unfortunate, because I felt that the declaration of neutrality I remembered you making would sit spectacularly well alongside your worries that rolling back Bush-era changes to the law might be pro-terror.

In the absence of the money quote that I could have sworn I saw a day or two ago, I'm quite content to forget about this, though I have been dismayed to have seen you respond with this rambling about labels* and accusations directed at vague pronouns.

*Michael Stipe used to respond to questions about his sexuality by saying "I think labels are for cans of food, not people." Well, surprise, turns out he's gay, and he probably missed out on a ton of groupie cock by not just saying so. Shoe-shopping sucks -- I'm not being entirely metaphorical here; I hate shoe-shopping intensely -- but there's no good reason to pretend that none of the shoes in the store could possibly fit.

[Glenn]

As for the bolded part - as I read in what I can find of the actual bill, as soon as the bill is signed everyone becomes legal.Legal... for six months. There are time limits on all these things, and they're damn tight when you consider how much they're expected to accomplish. Miss a deadline and you go back to being illegal.

As for amnesty - why is that a bad or "wrong" word? If the people are currently breaking the law, and you say "OK, now you're legal without going through the process" why is that not amnesty? Isn't it by definition?Amnesty has a dual meaning: a blanket pardon for a crime, or the granting of citizenship. Everyone in the country illegally has committed a felony, and Tancredo will accuse you of amnesty if you don't punish them, regardless of whether they are given citizenship or not. Capiche?

Again, though, I'm curious how this impacts people who have been working for years through the legal process.Well, there'll be more visas granted for professionals, and a more streamlined process, so people already in the H-1B process will move through it faster. I don't know about other immigrants, but I assume they get fucked.

[MikeJ]

Amnesty has a dual meaning: a blanket pardon for a crime, or the granting of citizenship.

I've only ever heard the 'pardon for a crime' definition of amnesty. Where do you get this 'granting of citizenship'?

[Glenn]

I've only ever heard the 'pardon for a crime' definition of amnesty. Where do you get this 'granting of citizenship'?It's how Lackey just defined it. It's certainly the implied meaning when discussing immigration in the US.

[JeffL]

I can't seem to find the post that originally pissed me off, which is unfortunate, because I felt that the declaration of neutrality I remembered you making would sit spectacularly well alongside your worries that rolling back Bush-era changes to the law might be pro-terror.



Forgetting all the personal stuff, my comments on the Bush impact on security was either spectacularly misarticulated or spectacularly misinterepreted or some blend of both. It was an attack on Bush and cronies. The intended point was that, in their attempt to protect us, they may have created an atmosphere in which we go too far the other way. I'm not talking about rolling back Bush-era changes, I'm talking about stripping all of our capabilities down too far, below pre-Bush levels, as a reaction to the heavy handed unconstitutional approaches.

[JeffL]

Legal... for six months. There are time limits on all these things, and they're damn tight when you consider how much they're expected to accomplish. Miss a deadline and you go back to being illegal.

Amnesty has a dual meaning: a blanket pardon for a crime, or the granting of citizenship. Everyone in the country illegally has committed a felony, and Tancredo will accuse you of amnesty if you don't punish them, regardless of whether they are given citizenship or not. Capiche?

Well, there'll be more visas granted for professionals, and a more streamlined process, so people already in the H-1B process will move through it faster. I don't know about other immigrants, but I assume they get fucked.

To the last point - is it really fair that people like these who've followed the legal process and spent tons of money and time have a HARDER time getting their green card than illegal immigrants? That one kind of sticks in my craw.

Yeah, I capiche your point. My interpretation of amnesty in this context was we'll forget and forgive your breaking of the law, which is of course what we're doing with this bill. Believe it or not - I don't have a problem with that, in and of itself. My wife and kids and I, with our church, when we were in Texas, spent a lot of time in the summers working with and bringing food, clothes, etc. to migrant worker camps in which you knew 90% of the people were illegals. It's what got my youngest daughter started speaking Spanish and taking Spanish lessons non-stop for the last umpty years. These were good people, doing the best they could. I guess my point was I'm not sure why the word "amnesty" has become such a negative - it is what it is.

[MikeSofaer]

To the last point - is it really fair that people like these who've followed the legal process and spent tons of money and time have a HARDER time getting their green card than illegal immigrants? That one kind of sticks in my craw.
I don't see why we should make policy based on what is fair. This isn't a judicial issue. We make policy on what is best for society, and what is best for society, in my opinion, is not having an off-the-books economy.

[Jason McCullough]

From the polls, there's a majority of the country that wants the system changed. They're just evenly split about what direction to go, so naturally a compromise bill between those opposite directions (it really is, it doesn't find some third way out of the whole thing) doesn't get much support.

As to "amnesty for law breakers," I don't believe for a second there's a significant number of people out there seriously concerned only with the rule of law, blah blah blah. It's just dressed up nativism.

[bigdruid]

As to "amnesty for law breakers," I don't believe for a second there's a significant number of people out there seriously concerned only with the rule of law, blah blah blah. It's just dressed up nativism.

I agree, but there definitely are a few who oppose amnesty for the "it's not fair to law abiding immigrants" reason. I know my brother just jumped through a *ton* of hoops to get a green card for his wife, and he's pissed that anyone should get a shortcut to the "front of the line".

I disagree with him, but at least I understand where he's coming from.

But, yeah, there's plenty of other people in my family who oppose amnesty primarily because they are frightened of brown people and their foreign ways.

[notatiger]

Everyone in the country illegally has committed a felony

You sure about this? It doesn't jive with what I've heard/read. Do you have any specific information?

[Glenn]

Section 1325. Improper entry by alien
...Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both...Not sure if it's technically a felony, on further examination.

[Glenn]

Also:
The cost to the illegal immigrants has also increased significantly too as they now routinely hire coyotes to help them get across. Coyotes are large dog-like animals, and they tend to be very nice.[5]

[drewl]

I'm not afraid of brown people, but tell me why it's good to let people here illegally stay?
Why it's good they take my job at half the salary?
Why they get free emergency hospital treatment that I have to pay for?
I just want to know.

[notatiger]

I'm not afraid of brown people, but tell me why it's good to let people here illegally stay?
Because it is just to care for your fellow human being.

Why it's good they take my job at half the salary?

That's good for whoever hired you, which is theoretically good for America. Their lower labor costs result in lower prices, which frees up money for other things.

Why they get free emergency hospital treatment that I have to pay for?
They pay for it too. Most immigrants pay taxes on their pay (they are still using an SSN, just not theirs), including Social Security, which they will not get. They also pay taxes when they contribute to the local economy.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Why it's good they take my job at half the salary?
Apparently drewl is an unskilled laborer. Who knew?

Seriously, is your job really in danger of being filled by an illegal immigrant? Moreso than say, being outsourced?

[drewl]

Because it is just to care for your fellow human being.
Nice in theory but they're still here illegally


That's good for whoever hired you, which is theoretically good for America. Their lower labor costs result in lower prices, which frees up money for other things.
No, the money saved is just adding to the profit margins, I don't see prices going down.

They pay for it too. Most immigrants pay taxes on their pay (they are still using an SSN, just not theirs), including Social Security, which they will not get. They also pay taxes when they contribute to the local economy.
debateable whether they use more in services than they contribute.

As to my employment status, I saw a disturbing report about white collar and engineering jobs being filled by immigrants being payed below entry level salaries.
So it's good that wages in all fields go down?

[Midnight Son]

Bill dies for the time being. Big Business pissed off! Fuck 'em.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

As to my employment status, I saw a disturbing report about white collar and engineering jobs being filled by immigrants being payed below entry level salaries.

Where did you see this report? Was it talking about legals or illegals? Because for white-collar and engineering jobs, outsourcing has exactly the same effect. Honestly, if I'm gonna lost my job to an immigrant/non-citizen, I'd rather it be someone who's gonna live here and contribute to the local economy.

As for wages, well, some people would probably tell you yes. I'm just not convinced that illegal immigration is a particularly large factor in declining wages.

[drewl]

pretty sure it was CNN.
Hiring engineers from India with H1B visas and paying them 1/3 of what they were paying the poor American they just canned.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

And that has precisely what to do with illegal immigration?

[drewl]

Apparently drewl is an unskilled laborer. Who knew?

Seriously, is your job really in danger of being filled by an illegal immigrant? Moreso than say, being outsourced?
Yeah, I'm logging in between lawn cutting jobs.

[Midnight Son]

And that has precisely what to do with illegal immigration?

It has to do with the mindset of corporate America. Get the cheapest labor no matter what. Fine, I guess. I just wonder who's going to buy their products when we're all peasants earning minimum wage.

[drewl]

And that has precisely what to do with illegal immigration?
Corporations driving down salaries, outsourcing, manuf. moving overseas....aside from wiping old people's butts what work will be left in the future?

[Nick Walter]

pretty sure it was CNN.
Hiring engineers from India with H1B visas and paying them 1/3 of what they were paying the poor American they just canned.

That's actually illegal under the H1B program I believe.

[Nick Walter]

Corporations driving down salaries, outsourcing, manuf. moving overseas....aside from wiping old people's butts what work will be left in the future?

Will they be willing to work so cheap once they are legal citizens and become accustomed to American standards of living?

[Glenn]

That's actually illegal under the H1B program I believe.It's expressly illegal under the H1B program, I'm sure.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Corporations driving down salaries, outsourcing, manuf. moving overseas....aside from wiping old people's butts what work will be left in the future?

This is still seperate from the arguments for or against letting illegals stay in the country, which is what you started your little tirade with.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, they have to offer prevailing wage, more or less. There's still a "more people drives the price down" bit, but they can't offer them a pittance.

[Anaxagoras]

Corporations driving down salaries, outsourcing, manuf. moving overseas....aside from wiping old people's butts what work will be left in the future?
Dude. Take an economics course. Seriously. Just one course would correct this misconception.

Immigration will drive down salaries, yaddah yaddah yaddah. But the laws of economics dictate that nothing is ever taken to its logical conclusion. Economics, after all, is the sum of human behaviour.

[drewl]

This is still seperate from the arguments for or against letting illegals stay in the country, which is what you started your little tirade with.
I get confused logging in between greeting people at the door.....excuse me...Welcome to WalMart.....

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Well, that was a productive conversation.

[Ben]

Maybe next time drewl can hire an illegal immigrant for 1/3 the price to argue his side more effectively.

Edit: I again call for someone in the world with some exposure to grow some balls and call out the racists for what they are.

[Midnight Son]

Edit: I again call for someone in the world with some exposure to grow some balls and call out the racists for what they are.

Yeah, I'm tired of them making fun of us Anglos!

[wisefool]

Actually, Drewl does bring up a very common point used worldwide against immigrants and people of other ethnicities (legal or not).

E.G. Malaysia's pogroms against ethnic-Chinese.
Barcelona burning down Chinese-owned shoe stores (~2006)

Increasing the supply of labor will apply downward pressure to wages. People with no skill sets *are* harmed by increasing immigration. Governments are quite worried about providing jobs (not just food, shelter) to large unskilled labor - this is a reason textile industries are so sensitive, they provide jobs to people.

Not going to argue increasing the supply of labor is probably good for the country as a whole, and for the moneyed classes disproportionally. I'm not a "blue-collar nascar truck driver" but you can see how they'd feel threatened. On the other hand, my peers/family are mostly immigrants and they sneer at how "Americans" are spoiled. A significant number of migrants are still paid below minimum wage - the garment people are paid by the piece, and many waiters and delivery people are not paid a wage at all - they live off tips.

Cool! More people that can help me knock a chimney or resurface my basement. But what when your profession is opened so much your wages drop 20%, 30%?

*Note that overall, I am in favor of providing a path of legalization to the migrants. They're here, they're gonna keep coming. Might as well allow their children to learn some civics and not end up uneducated and unable to fulfill human potential.