The Dems have put forth an immigration proposal that is heavy on border enforcement, as expected. But according to Greg Sargent, it “also provides a process to legalize over 10 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S.,” which is sensible, but the Right doesn’t want to listen to any solution that doesn’t involve “fences” and “deportation.”
There’s a chance Goldman Sachs will get hit with criminal charges after all.
Which brings us to how these things relate. As Steve M says, some people have been waving away what Goldman Sachs did by saying it wasn’t illegal. So a few greedy people can destroy 8 million jobs and otherwise wreak havoc on the economy and the lives of countless people, but it’s no big deal because it wasn’t illegal.
But somebody’s grandma who has been living in the U.S. for 40 20 years, raised kids, held jobs, goes to church, etc., has to be deported right now because she doesn’t have a green card?
Well, the 40 years bit is a little hyperbolic, since the law of 1986 provided amnesty to anyone who was here 24 years ago.
That immigration reform of 1986, though, provided that amnesty based on the premise that it was a “one time deal.” It was a fairly unpopular component, in part because it was thought it would increase subsequent illegal immigration in hopes of a repeat of amnesty, and was accepted, in part, because it was accompanied with the warning that, “If you are thinking of coming based on the idea that we will repeat this amnesty, don’t, because this is the only time we are going to do this.” So having given amnesty to 3 million then, we are prepared to give it to 12 million now. How many million next time? And what do we say to the dozens of millions who are respectful of our immigration laws and are waiting to be given permission to come here legally?
I know, I will be condemned as a hateful person, but we just keep saying one thing and doing something different, and wondering why people don’t trust the government. But before you condemn me as a racist who hates Hispanics, you will have you reconcile your accusation with the five members of my family who are Hispanic, including one who is still learning English, and one who waited two full years for permission to enter this country.
“. . . over 10 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S”
Question: How do they calculate this number? It’s not like they’re registered as illegal aliens, and it’s not like their employers are declaring how many illegal aliens they have working for them. I’m not doubting its accuracy, but am simply curious. What’s the margin of error?
How many million next time? And what do we say to the dozens of millions who are respectful of our immigration laws and are waiting to be given permission to come here legally?
That’s exactly why the hammer needs to fall on employers who knowingly hire, and sometimes even recruit, illegal immigrants. People will flock here as long as they think there’s a good chance they can live a better life here than they could wherever they came from. Knowingly hiring illegal aliens already is a felony, but my understanding is that what we might call vigorous prosecution of the employers is unusual, and the fines are small enough that many employers just write the fines off as the cost of doing business.
If your argument is that we have to go crazy with deportation to discourage more illegal aliens from entering the country, I don’t buy it. as long as it’s fairly easy to get better-paying jobs here deportees are just going to re-enter the country illegally. Think of it as a whack-a-mole approach. But if it isn’t all that easy to get work here, people are going to go home and tell their friends to not bother.
If your argument is that people who entered the country illegally shouldn’t get amnesty because it’s not fair to people who are here legally — dude, are you ready to pay a bunch more taxes to cover the cost of rounding up and deporting 12 million people? Get real.
If you think they should just stay illegal and not be given amnesty, I disagree, for the practical matter that it’s better for all of us if people are properly documented and aren’t somehow in hiding from authorities, even if they aren’t doing anything criminal.
As far as all those alleged millions of people waiting to enter the country legally, many of whom probably gave up waiting and came anyway, shouldn’t we be thinking in terms of making entering the country legally less of a burden? If there really are all these millions of people waiting years and years, why would anyone bother to sign on to the waiting list when they can get into the country right now?
Bill, use your brain now and then, OK? Don’t just parrot right-wing talking points.
What’s the margin of error?
The margin of error is huge. I’ve seen estimates as high as 22 million from organizations trying to whip up hysteria over the brown peril from Latin America. The 12 million figure came from the Pew organization, and while Pew is not always right I’d trust them over a bunch of screaming bigots. The 8 million is a U.S. government estimate.
Currently, employers of undocumented workers have the best of all worlds:
lower wages, higher profits, token fines as the cost of doing business and no complaints from the workers, regardless of how they are treated — much like having your own little fiefdom.
The cost of rounding up 12 million people and shipping them back to their native countries would be prohibitive. Not only that, as we have seen with Arizona, in order to effectively accomplish this we’d be dancing perilously close to a police state.
In addition to making the penalties for hiring undocumented workers much more severe, seems like there ought to be some way to issue “provisional citizenship” status — you’re here, and in ____years, provided you are felony-free, you’ll be a full citizen — that would then require employers to pay the same wages and offer the same bennies as they would to those with full citizenship.
Admittedly, this sounds pretty simplistic. Thing is, at least they’d be paying into the system and competing on a level playing field. As things stand right now, illegals have the advantage over U.S. citizens because they work for considerably less.
Pingback: Link(s): Fri, Apr 30th, 7am | Your Revolution (The Blog!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy2E1FJM76k
It’s a mistake to point to the Simpson-Mazzoli reform act of 1986 as the final word on this subject. That legislation became useless on all counts not long after it passed. So what if we take back the alleged “one-time deal” on amnesty? We already don’t enforce the bill’s sanctions against employers, its main purpose, because the teeth were surgically removed long ago.
The reason people keep coming here illegally is to find work; after the job market began contracting in late 2008, some of those undocumented workers have already returned home. One of the few times the market actually does regulate itself (a little).
..So a few greedy people can destroy 8 million jobs and otherwise wreak havoc on the economy and the lives of countless people, but it’s no big deal because it wasn’t illegal.
..But somebody’s grandma who has been living in the U.S. for 20 years, raised kids, held jobs, goes to church, etc., has to be deported right now because she doesn’t have a green card?
What Goldman did is too abstract for some, or more accurately, they are a far away, distant and invisible entity, in the minds of some. It’s very easy for the propagandists to twist this dimly understood event around to blame evil libruls, or any target they choose, for these same minds. These same propagandists have for years likewise drummed into mass culture the sancity of business and the glories of making money, and so certainly an entity like Goldman must be innocent.
OTOH, most white people have at least an arms-length experience of “the other”, who may or may not be getting some break the whites are not, and who at the very least are working at jobs that “should” be going to white people. And they’re everywhere. And so they’re a much easier to understand and more ubiquitous target for poor whites who can’t grasp how they’ve been fleeced by the real culprits.
These same people let their discomfort with “the other” prevent them from seeing the big picture and connecting the dots. I was eating a few months ago at Souplantation, a regional salad bar chain restaurant in the southwest. I happened to sit next to a guy who started to complain about all the non-English he was hearing all around us. Not getting a sympathetic response from me, he upped the ante by angrily insisting “these people are bleeding us dry!!”.
I didn’t have the presence of mind to mount much of a counter argument, but I wanted him to ask him how much he thought his delicious salad would’ve cost him without the labor of these people he hates.
This inability to see the big picture and see the real culprits was writ large in Sarah Palin who famously thought she could snow everyone with her vast foreign policy expertise by remarking that Russia is just next door. This infantile proposition is very similar to those who can’t conceive of the crimes committed by Goldman Sachs. They simply are incapable of thinking intelligently about such abstract and remote things. But the brown people next door – they can see that, and they react to that.
If one, for the sake of argument, agrees on what the actual problem is and on what the solution should deliver then the smartest avenue of attack is to address the contributing factors when it’s not practical to deal wih the symptoms directly.
Rounding them all up wreaks of the Nazi fixation on race even when it stops short of gas chambers. There would be internment camps, but Americans have already done that to Japanese Americans so it’s nothing new. Think of the fissure this would create between legal hispanic Americans and white Americans. It would be insane to go there.
Fixing porous borders and those among us who enrich themselves on the sweat of illegals would be actually be mor effective if one’s intent is to fix the problem rather than making an example of those who enter illegally so horrific that others would not dare. Those who favor the roundup are doing nothing more than satisfying a need for revenge over illegals having burdened their tiny minds wih a problem that’s too big for them to get their heads around. Besides, what can you do to someone who already risks their life to get here? What can you threaten such a person with?
Laws should arise from wisdom and be more effective than spitting into the wind. They should evolve and adapt to changing circumstances rather than constituting any chance of being a vehicle for hatred that would tear Americans apart.
I watched an old Chris Rock show last night. OK, so he’s no somber, serious newsmaker or encyclopedic quoter of facts and he delivers nothing in the way of deeper, intellectual/spiritual reasoning but there’s a simple, direct truth in what he says despite the expletive-laden street talk.
sorry, bad link:
http://ppatt.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!31E12062D0015784!1480.entry
Let’s see, which is easier, imprisoning tens of milions of people who are here illegally, or the 100,000+ people employing them KNOWINGLY? (Remember the Hormel plant when the Fed’s came in and busted hundred’s of workers who were illegal? And families were seperated? NOT ONE HORMEL EMPLYOEE, at least to my knowledge, was brought up on charges. Now, I might be wrong, but I wouldn’t be on it).
Of course the employees are brown, and the majority of the employers are white, and that throws a monkey-wrench into the equation.
The problem with out counterparts on the right is that it’s hard to be ‘reasonable’ with them when they can’t ‘reason!”
The issue of reform has a fascinating dynamic because it’s not 2 sided. As Barbara has poiinted out, the liberals are in roughly 2 camps with divergent opinions about a wall and security and WHERE to draw tle line on who would be allowed to apply for permission to stay.
Again, as Barbara said there are 2 camps among conservatives. The economic conservatives (Bush McCain crowd) want to keep the Chamber of Commerce happy. That means NOT really building a wall and NOT really deporting and NEVER enforcing penalties against employers. The economic conservatives (in stealth mode) are pitted against VOCAL social conservatives who want to impose draconian measures.
Getting immigration reform passed will be like whitewater rafting – it will be tricky to get the boat to go where you want it to. However, this is Obama’s element – HCR is proof of that. With the 2010 elections coming up, I agree we will see some partial measures designed to deflate conservative claims that open borders are imminent. However, I think there will be some race baiting of wingnuts by Obama and others prior to the election th highlight conservative racism against hispanics in the hope of getting some mid-term turnout.
Suppose this becomes the post-midterm issue. It will be VERY important to see that where democrats will lose Senate races (FL & AZ) – teabaggers do not WIN. I’m looking at voting for Crist in November in FL if the Democrat has no chance (currently projected) to deny the teabagger the Senate seat. Democrats need to consider supporting McCain in the primary in AZ.
For most of my life I worked in a profession with a strong ethical code. We were expected to live up to that code absolutely without exception. To do otherwise would result in termination. Beyond that, we accepted it as a sacred bond. Obviously, the Masters of the Universe are above ethical strictures, if the bottom line is fat. If one hires a financial advisor there is a placement of trust and a subsequent professional obligation that should follow. Goldman Sachs committed theft by substitution. They sold a “bucket” of investments with a false asssessment of risk and expectation. They sold one thing and delivered another. The result was robbing thousands of little people like myself and making a fat cat much fatter. It is a wonder to me that some people can see this sort of people as the creative benefactors and moral models of society.
snip…
On a personal note. My mother passed away recently. She was 94 and lost her savings in the Great Depression. It was an influence on the way she lived up until the end. She inherited $1200 back in the early sixties and invested in stocks. She did very well, but she was very heavily invested in AIG. Goldman Sachs bought Credit Default Swaps from AIG. The dominos were all in a line and ready to fall. My mother lived long enough to get the shaft for the second time. I lost a huge chunk of what would have been my inheritance. My mother was just the third domino, along with numerous others.
If all the “shoulda, woulda and coulda’s of regulation and oversight had been in place and the bond raters had been doing their jobs, I’d be drinking cheap local wine in Languedoc Rousillon. I think I’d still have a few goats.
Snip again…..
We have a large hispanic population here. Conjecture on legal status would be just that. Family owned businesses are common here and the business owners I know say their figures are down 20% from the recession. All of them have a sizable percentage of clientele who are hispanic. None of the small business people I know would survive without the patronage of Hispanics, illegal or not. Once a group is integrated into the economy, it is a done deal. The kicking and screaming is just reluctance to accept what has already ocurred.
Our latino population are good workers, good neighbors and our little town would be a whole lot less interesting without them.
“Bill, use your brain now and then, OK? Don’t just parrot right-wing talking points.”
That one had me rolling on the floor. You certainly have never been to my blog. My sister keeps wanting to know who that bleeding heart liberal is and what have they done with her brother.
If it’s a “right-wing talking point” to say that our laws should be respected then I am guilty as charged. Where in my comment did I advocate deporting anybody? I didn’t favor giving them citizenship, and you jumped to the conclusion that I wanted to deport them. There is no middle ground? Does this country have no legal non-citizen status that I might advocate? I actually believe we do have such a status.
I have to confess to being confused by our present policy. When we catch them individually we deport them, but as a group that would be somehow immoral or too costly. Doing it on a one-by-one basis by setting up checkpoints and blockades on our freeways seems to be okay.
If it’s a “right-wing talking point†to say that our laws should be respected then I am guilty as charged.
The topic is not whether laws should or should not be respected. I’m all about respecting laws. The topic is whether the law is stupid and counterproductive and should be changed, and if so, how.
No matter how liberal you think you are, your contribution to this thread was the same crap I’ve heard from wingnuts for years. If you want to offer an opinion on how immigration law should be reformed, please do so, but I don’t think you’re grasping the situation.
I didn’t favor giving them citizenship, and you jumped to the conclusion that I wanted to deport them. There is no middle ground? Does this country have no legal non-citizen status that I might advocate? I actually believe we do have such a status.
I don’t necessarily favor giving them citizenship, either, but giving them legal non-citizen status (which I do favor) is still amnesty, which you said you oppose. Make up your mind.
When we catch them individually we deport them, but as a group that would be somehow immoral or too costly.
People are deported as a group all the time. What we’re talking about is a no-amnesty policy aimed at rounding up and deporting as many illegal aliens as possible. There are estimates that such a policy would cost $2.6 trillion over ten years.
Please read again, slowly: $2.6 trillion. We’re going to pay for that, how, exactly?
I realize that estimate may be high, but it’s probably not a complete fantasy, either.
So here are the choices:
1. Mass deportation
2. Maintaining the status quo
3. Amnesty that would allow illegal aliens already here to come forward and apply for some kind of documented legal status. Whether this status might eventually lead to citizenship is another issue. Let’s say it doesn’t provide a path to citizenship, just permanent legal status. Obviously people with criminal records or ties to terrorism can still be deported.
According to your first comment, you don’t like #3. Now you say you don’t like #1. You’re going with #2?
“We’re deporting them now, as fast as we can catch them. And we are engaged in massive measures, such as roadblocks on our freeways, to catch them. Are you suggesting that none of that is costing us money?”
What I actually favor is applying a statute of limitations, which we do to all of our less heinous laws, and saying that those who have been here for a certain period have the illegality of their entry expunged, those less that that time sent back. I know, you’re going to call me Hitler for that, too, because you tolerate no differing opinions on your blog. If the opinion disagrees with yours it is wrong, period.
I am willing to admit I do not have the answer. This is a terrible problem and other solutions might be better than mine.
My original arguement was not really about the amnesty itself, but about Congress passing laws with forseeable effects, which they actually forsee but palm off with platitudes so that they do not have to recconsider and write better laws. That got lost in your condemnationation of what you saw as my position on amnesty. I know you will not go read my blog, but if you did you would see in my post today what my original point was.
In other words, now you’re in favor of amnesty, but earlier you were against it.
“In other words, now you’re in favor of amnesty, but earlier you were against it.”
I absolutely do not see where I said that I was against amnesty. I was saying that I am against laws that are illogical and make no sense. I was saying that I am against unfairness in laws even when, perhaps, that unfairness needs to exist. I was saying that I have low esteem for lawmakers who write laws which have forseeable consequences and willfully blind themselves to those consequences.
It was your knee jerk reaction that read that as me being against amnesty. Obviously you did not read my blog or anything on it, because you do not want to have your preconceived idea of who I am to be changed.
I absolutely do not see where I said that I was against amnesty.
It was this part:
So having given amnesty to 3 million then, we are prepared to give it to 12 million now. How many million next time? And what do we say to the dozens of millions who are respectful of our immigration laws and are waiting to be given permission to come here legally?
If you are not, in fact, against amnesty, you should have said so. I cannot read your mind. There’s nothing “preconceived” here; I know nothing about you except what you write.
Wow. I have been declaiming for a full year about features of health care reform that I did not like, and features that I thought it lacked, and simultaneously insisting without reservation that Congress should pass whatever legislation it could manage to pass. No doubt every time I said that the bill was less that perfect you would read that to mean that I was saying that the bill should not pass, merely because I did not say in the same sentence with the criticism that I favored passage.
The passage you quote is critical of amnesty, says that I feel it contains elements of unfairness. It does not say that I do not think it should be done. It is your interpretation that I am opposed to amnesty, and when I try to clarify, you reject my clarification because, having accused me of being a right winger, you are not going to back down from it.
The passage you quote is critical of amnesty, says that I feel it contains elements of unfairness. It does not say that I do not think it should be done. It is your interpretation that I am opposed to amnesty, and when I try to clarify, you reject my clarification because, having accused me of being a right winger, you are not going to back down from it.
The problem is, Bill, that YOU did not express yourself clearly, so the onus is on YOU to apologize for not being clear. And I’ve had it with you. Good-bye.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
I wouldn’t be surpised if this more likely than a terrorist attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6hvNe11r9U