Having the fence up will be a start. You're probably right that if the House Republicans had their way, reform would go as far as the fence and no further. But they will be forced into the debate for several reasons.

1) Putting up a fence doesn't make those who are already here go away.

2) Because it doesn't make them go away, it doesn't solve any of the problems their presence causes.

3) As one noted pundit observed, there is no fence strong enough in the world to hold back millions of people pushing against it. People are clever, and unless a saner method of entry into the US than our current immigration routine is implemented, people who want in will find a way around it.

4) Because people keep coming, even with the fence, the problem isn't resolved.

So I think the debate is on, no matter what. Whether we're going to get something good out of it remains to be seen.

I agree that the debate needs to be held, and for exactly those reasons. I also believe that we MUST have a fence first and for a considerable time, a fence-only approach, simply for the reason that it is a very difficult issue. Here's my thoughts:

I support reaffirming the rule of law by denying any path to US citizenship for those whose first act in this country was the violation of our borders, and whose continued activities in this country may include identity theft, tax evasion, theft of government services, conspiracy and voter fraud. I believe the first step to any immigration reform is the sealing of our borders, by whatever means necessary. I recognize the economic need for a temporary worker program with strict rules, fraud-proof identification, and /fixed departure dates/. I also welcome legal immigrants who wish to become Americans, and support the strengthening and regularization of that process, but not automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

Now the question of how...

You're dead right on needing more than fences... But you're CRAZY to demand that we not pass a fence-only bill. Having a fence won't reduce the pressure from the illegals currently in here, it won't reduce the pressure from people trying to get in... it'll just make it a little easier to enforce a part of the law.

I'm 100% in favor of making immigration more rational. (And by that I mean easier.) I just don't see why that has to be joined hand-in-hand with making illegal immigration harder... especially since that didn't work last time it was tried.

What I'd really like: make "free" social services completely unavailable to "undocumented" persons. You wanna sneak in? I don't mind if you don't make me pay for you. (That ain't gonna happen, though.)

I'd insert a satire about #2, except it's vaguely similar to Bush's first "guest"_worker scheme. I'm probably the only person who watched the CATO_video where Margaret_Spellings said that that scheme would apply to every type of employee. She specifically mentioned that the scheme would cover "_nurses_, _teachers_, _high-tech workers_, _low-skilled workers_. This is a concept that can apply broadly".

She didn't mention below minimum wage, but then again they never mentioned the minimum wage when promoting their scheme.

And, while one might assume #2 above only applies to foreign serfs toiling in our fields, no doubt powerful forces would try to make it "apply broadly."

Obviously, massively depressing American wages finds some strong support, but I'd suggest the reader ask whether those who support such schemes have the best interests of the U.S. at heart.

As for the more "normal" scheme of simply giving amnesty earned legalization to millions of illegal aliens, that will result in many, many millions more applicants than we're told are here, it will result in many, many millions more legal immigrants due to family_reunification, it will massively increase illegal immigration, and the same corrupt, anti-American forces that currently support "regularization" will still be out there and will be even more powerful than they are now. Notably, the far-left racial groups will have much more power, the corrupt industry groups will have tasted blood yet again and will have more economic power, and the corrupt Mexican government will have more of their people in the U.S. and will have even more political power inside the U.S. than they currently have.

And, the new amnesty regularization will be just as enforced as the 1986 amnesty, due to those corrupt forces listed above.

I'd suggest the reader does as much research as possible, decides what's in America's best interests, and then decides to fight against rather than give in to those corrupt forces.

Nuclear Siafu:

As one noted pundit observed, there is no fence strong enough in the world to hold back millions of people pushing against it.

Yeesh, whoever said that must have the IQ of an eggplant.

Oh, wait...

Dafydd

BigMediaBlog:

Obviously, massively depressing American wages finds some strong support, but I'd suggest the reader ask whether those who support such schemes have the best interests of the U.S. at heart.

It's not possible to "massively depress[] American wages," unless you have the invisible foot of the government poking out to trip up employers (for example, by mandating employment).

The minimum wage is an intrusion into the free market: it artificially raises wages for unskilled labor higher than it's worth; employers respond by hiring fewer people (duh).

If you eliminated the minimum wage entirely, it wouldn't lower the cost of auto repair, open-heart surgery, or API design by a single dollar per hour. Wages for those skilled jobs are set by the intersection of the demand for them and availability of people who can do them, not by the presence or absence of a minimum wage for hewers of water and carriers of wood.

Minimum wages affect other wages indirectly, because many unions have negotiated contracts that tie the wages for this or that job to the minimum wage ("operating this machine will have a starting salary of 2.8 times the minimum wage"). Thus, raising the minimum wage will have the effect of a massive tax on employers -- forcing labor costs up, which means they'll let go more people (how nice).

But if you eliminated the minimum wage entirely, or only for a particular group, that would not affect these types of employment contract.

Dafydd

I am not surprised that the fence has this kind of support, because most people who support immigration reform also support a fence. There was never that much resistance to it whatever the hysterical propaganda from folks like Tancredo might have claimed.

That was never a question. So perhaps there has been a deal to debate more substantial reforms following the bill.

I do not really trust some of the nativists on this subject, thus far they have bullied their way into getting what they want...but two thirds of the American people support immigration reform so if the Republicans refuse to so much as debate the subject it will be just one more thing the Democrats can campaign on.

And btw, massively repressing American wages is not that easy, there is such a thing as a market. When it comes to labor such as agricultural wages, just what do people think that work is worth in market terms? How much do you think you would be willing to spend on a pound of grapes or a head of lettuce? Once upon a time these products would have been luxuries out of season. Now you can walk into a Krogers and buy pretty much anything you want anytime you want for a price you can afford. That is not an accident.

The worst feature of the illegal immigration snafu caused by non-enforcement of immigration and border laws is the grevious wrong inflicted on those who are attempting to comply with said laws.

They are subjected to restrictive quotas, country by country. They grind through endless legal process and uncertain waits. They must learn English and pass tests defending their understanding of American constitutional structure and processes.

If any significant fraction of the eleven million (more or less) trespassers is 'regularized' and given the privileges of citizenship (such as the vote) without these burdens of process, then the legal applicants should logically cite the 14th Amendment in a class action and demand the same loosening of standards in their favor.

That's the mess the Executive branch since Bush I has created by enforcing some laws and not enforcing others. It's the same mess foisted on the democratic process by a media which reports some news and excludes the part unwelcome to its unelected aristocracy - the electorate cannot rationally govern without the whole story, and is subject to demagogic herding.

I'm with snochasr on this one, sorry. No country can survive contempt for the law on such a scale. There have to be meaningful penalties, not "pay three of the last five years taxes and all is forgiven."

This is my country. I served in time of war. I paid taxes. The illegals broke the law coming here. Don't like the law? There are plenty of laws I don't like either, but I can't break them.

You can call me anti-immigrant or racist, but it won't stick; meet my wife - naturalized US citizen, sponsored by me... Meet my kids, whose education I'm still paying for - along with those of the millions of illegals who came here that we have to educate.

Meet my son, who's working part-time competing with the H1B visa holders for the "high tech jobs that Americans can't fill." I guess his Computer Science degree came off a cereal box. Health insurance? He buys his own. But he still pays the taxes that support the people who mosey into emergency rooms for treatment. Are most of them illegals? No, but many are. Why are they entitled to my money?

Depressing wages is not a myth. Like Terrye says, there is a market. We've added 12 million to the supply side. What this country has done by allowing massive unskilled illegal immigration is import poor people. Why is that a good thing? Didn't we have enough poor of our own?

Yes, fix the laws that discourage the people we need and want. But first, build the fence. Or make Mexico the 51st state.

I agree with number 3. But I have a problem telling all those who played by the rules that those who cut in line (came here illegally) get to stay in front of them. Even if they don't get citizenship until the backlog has passed before them, the goal of most immigrants is the job opportunities first, citizenship second (if ever), so letting them stay with a job is counter productive.

I certainly don't want to sow the seed for encouraging the next waves of illegal alliens as the quickest path to a green card. I would say hold off on any changes in the illegal alliens status. Secure the border, rationalize the legal immigration. Provide incentives that those who want to regularize their position see the best way to do that is to leave the US and enter through the proper door. Those who don't will be dealt with the same we have dealt with them for the last 20 years. Not ideally, but as long as the numbers don't keep growing by leaps and bounds, liveable.

Insufficiently Sensitive:

If any significant fraction of the eleven million (more or less) trespassers is 'regularized' and given the privileges of citizenship (such as the vote) without these burdens of process, then the legal applicants should logically cite the 14th Amendment in a class action and demand the same loosening of standards in their favor.

Part of the problem is the studied refusal of the hard-liners to admit that a very large chunk of the 11 million consists of people who did go through the "restrictive quotas, country by country.... endless legal process and uncertain waits.... learn[ing] English and pass[ing] tests defending their understanding of American constitutional structure and processes;" and then, at the end of all that, they were summarily denied residency without cause or even an explanation.

Others did not; they just snuck in on a lark, or for more nefarious reasons. That is why I always say regularization for a portion of the 11 million -- and deportation for the rest.

But any argument about regularization must begin with the realization that a very large number of illegals already went through the entire "line"... and when they got to the head of it, having jumped through all the hoops, they were capriciously denied that which was given to others, equally capriciously, who went through no more trouble and difficulty than those who were denied.

Think of my analogy of going through four years of college, taking all the same classes, passing them, passing the tests -- only to find out at the end that no, you're not getting your diploma after all. But others who did no better than you get theirs -- including some who get it in their first week of freshman class.

Don't you think differently of those who went through years and years of legal process to get their green cards, then were denied (or worse, had their paperwork lost), told to leave, told to try again in a few years, but who just decided it wasn't fair or just and simply stayed? Don't you think differently of them than someone who just paid a coyote to get him into the country without even trying the legal route?

Dafydd

I can see support for #3, but I don't think the support for 1 and 2 were nearly as high as support for a fence.

Support for reform, I imagine, depends on what each person means when they say "reform." For a lot of people, I think the idea of "reform" is a combination of #3 and actually enforcing the (sensical) laws currently on the books.

For example: Some states and smaller governmental districts have enacted immigration laws in part because the higher levels of government won't enforce the current laws. The result has been, IIRC, that lawsuits are calling the constitutionality of this into question. I don't remember what the results from those have been.

But the "sanctuary cities," those places that brazenly announce that they refuse to enforce immigration law, go more or less unchallenged.

Average Joes, such as myself, hear this and think that something is seriously wrong. And despite your best efforts, Dafydd, I'm not entirely convinced that 1&2 are the first things we need towards fixing what is broken.

MarkD:

What this country has done by allowing massive unskilled illegal immigration is import poor people. Why is that a good thing? Didn't we have enough poor of our own?

Isn't this the same argument that people like Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan use against legal immigration?

I would rather let in an unskilled worker who was willing to learn skills, and who was Americanized, than a highly skilled, competent doctor -- like Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Mark D, do a search on Big Lizards for "takao". Read his story. Mind, he chose to obey the order to leave the country rather than break the law... but please read that story, then come back and tell me you're glad he was thrown out, you think that was just, he just has to take the bad with the good, that there was nothing capricious, arbitrary, or unjust about that.

(You can also read about my wife Sachi's final swearing in ceremony -- which required direct intervention by a member of Congress -- while others got theirs with no difficulty.)

Dafydd

As for people breaking the law and getting away with it..... drug dealers, hookers, tax evaders and dead beat Dads do it every day. But somehow or other Mexican landscapers, roofers and nannies are going to bring about the end of our society. Somehow I doubt that.

And what about the millions who never crossed that border? How will this fence stop people like that? Answer, it won't.

Dafydd ab Hugh: It's not possible to "massively depress[] American wages," unless you have the invisible foot of the government poking out to trip up employers (for example, by mandating employment).

The original Bush_guest_worker scheme would have proved you wrong. Employers could have searched for nurses at $5 an hour. American nurses would be forced to accept those wages or face being replaced by foreign nurses.

Terrye: And btw, massively repressing American wages is not that easy, there is such a thing as a market. When it comes to labor such as agricultural wages, just what do people think that work is worth in market terms? How much do you think you would be willing to spend on a pound of grapes or a head of lettuce?

Ah, the fictional $10 lettuce rears its rotten head. Labor is a small part of the cost of produce. And, growers would import slave labor if they could get away with it; they're coming close with recent attempts to bring in SE Asia labor, who'll work cheaper than Mexicans.

Insufficiently Sensitive: the legal applicants should logically cite the 14th Amendment in a class action. Americans are starting to sue both companies and the feds based on unfair_competition, RICO, and various other grounds.

Dafydd ab Hugh: then, at the end of all that, they were summarily denied residency without cause or even an explanation... only to find out at the end that no, you're not getting your diploma after all. Sorry, that won't wash. With the latter, you have grounds for a suit. With the former, you were an applicant and there was no guarantee. If you think you were unjustly denied something with the former, then abide by the laws (i.e., leave the country) and sue from outside. That's no excuse to remain here illegally. A better example would be being denied entry to Harvard and then trying to sneak into the classroom. And, if you want to reform legal citizenship, try and do that. But, don't try to combine it with a massive amnesty that will only make the legal route more difficult. (See CBO_report_on_USCIS; ask whether we can trust Mexico's assurances that someone is not a criminal).

Terrye: But somehow or other Mexican landscapers, roofers and nannies are going to bring about the end of our society. Obviously, there are many sides of this issue with which you aren't familiar.

First, regarding the people themselves, there are millions of foreign citizens in the U.S. Sit down and think through all the possible reactions there might be if we decided to conduct mass deportations.

And, all those millions of Mexican citizens, as stated above, gives that country tremendous political power inside the U.S.

And, those who profit from all that illegal activity donate to politicians who enable further illegal activity. That undermines our entire political system.

So, when you actually think it through, you see how very serious this problem is.

Let me try this again:

Dafydd ab Hugh: It's not possible to "massively depress[] American wages," unless you have the invisible foot of the government poking out to trip up employers (for example, by mandating employment).

The original Bush_guest_worker scheme would have proved you wrong. Employers could have searched for nurses at $5 an hour. American nurses would be forced to accept those wages or face being replaced by foreign nurses.

Terrye: And btw, massively repressing American wages is not that easy, there is such a thing as a market. When it comes to labor such as agricultural wages, just what do people think that work is worth in market terms? How much do you think you would be willing to spend on a pound of grapes or a head of lettuce?

Ah, the fictional $10 lettuce rears its rotten head. Labor is a small part of the cost of produce. And, growers would import slave labor if they could get away with it; they're coming close with recent attempts to bring in SE Asia labor, who'll work cheaper than Mexicans.

Insufficiently Sensitive: the legal applicants should logically cite the 14th Amendment in a class action.

Americans are starting to sue both companies and the feds based on unfair_competition, RICO, and various other grounds.

Dafydd ab Hugh: then, at the end of all that, they were summarily denied residency without cause or even an explanation... only to find out at the end that no, you're not getting your diploma after all.

Sorry, that won't wash. With the latter, you have grounds for a suit. With the former, you were an applicant and there was no guarantee. If you think you were unjustly denied something with the former, then abide by the laws (i.e., leave the country) and sue from outside. That's no excuse to remain here illegally. A better example would be being denied entry to Harvard and then trying to sneak into the classroom. And, if you want to reform legal citizenship, try and do that. But, don't try to combine it with a massive amnesty that will only make the legal route more difficult. (See CBO_report_on_USCIS; ask whether we can trust Mexico's assurances that someone is not a criminal).

Terrye: But somehow or other Mexican landscapers, roofers and nannies are going to bring about the end of our society.

Obviously, there are many sides of this issue with which you aren't familiar.

First, regarding the people themselves, there are millions of foreign citizens in the U.S. Sit down and think through all the possible reactions there might be if we decided to conduct mass deportations.

And, all those millions of Mexican citizens, as stated above, gives that country tremendous political power inside the U.S.

And, those who profit from all that illegal activity donate to politicians who enable further illegal activity. That undermines our entire political system.

So, when you actually think it through, you see how very serious this problem is.

Dafydd, I think if you approach this as a social problem rather than a political one, you come out further ahead. You also would have a radically different solution for the problem. Analogous to a medical emergency, the first step is to stop the hemmorhaging. That means sealing up the gaping holes in the Southern border. Stat.

The next step is to stabilize the patient. This means that employers need to be protected, for the moment, from a complete loss of workforce, and from massive prosecution for hiring illegals. Illegals need to be momentarily protected from massive deportation, which is largely impractical anyway. In my opinion, none of this requires any sort of guest worker program. In fact, I'm still suggesting that we should offer a temporary amnesty to employers to convince them to turn in citizenship information on all their employees. That way, when we figure out how to categorize these non-citizens, and decide what we are going to do with each one of the 11 million, we will at least know where they are.

The third and most difficult step is determining how to cure the patient's illness. In this case, it means carefully analyzing the degree to which our present immigration laws, procedures, and enforcement have contributed to the problem, and correcting those things first. If we truly have millions of people here who have met all the requirements to become Americans and have been denied that privilege, we should correct that -- sort of like washing our hands before surgery. Then and only then do we actually operate or prescribe the final cure. I think this takes the form of a guest worker program with a fixed expiration -- you are here six years and then must leave -- but with current illegal immigrants given a one-shot opportunity to become legal immigrants AT THE END of that time period, after all of the people currently "in line" have had their opportunity. I think that may be too generous, frankly, to people who have become, in essence, career criminals, but I would consider it. Of course, once the fence is built, we have time for the rest. And anything Congress does quickly is usually wrong. OTOH, their track record with deliberation isn't too hot, either.

I regret that I am so late to this discussion but having worked on the San Diego border for over a decade now I believe I bring a unique perspective to this discussion.

It should be understood that up until now we have an open border. We pretend not to, but as an Immigration Official for the last ten years I can promise you that if anyone makes even the slightest effort to get across our border they will do so.

It is so bad right now that over half the people we catch we've caught at least 5 times before, it isn't even odd to catch someone we've got 50 times before. They go back for holidays, they go back for deaths in the family, they go back for sick family members, they go back for just about any reason (Seasonal work is at an end) and they do not fear being captured. I do not have statistics to back this up but I would feel comfortable with saying that at least 30% of those living here illegally come and go at least once a year.

In other words, they deport themselves and break the law again and again.

This is why I believe the fence first attitude is the right one to have. Let's fix the dam before we clean up the water in the lake below.

As to Dafydd's point #3. I believe that most of our immigration problems (By that I mean legal immigration, people using the system) will be fixed simply by putting up this fence. Once we get all of the people out of line who are taking cuts, looking for special permissions to stay because they had anchor babies, or have relatives who snuck over and got special access for one reason or another, once those folks are culled from the system via a fence, those doing things the right way will move smoothly and easily through the system.

Again, only time will tell but i'm very optimistic about a fence. Once the fence is built (How many years will that take I wonder with court challenges, etc?), I will personally be happy to support any additional tweaks that are needed in our immigration system. It isn't fair right now, and it isn't fair because our border is practically an open border.

Even though this could mean the end of my job, i'm glad we did it. I care more about what is good for America as a whole than what is good for me personally.

Why not use the fact that we're a federal nation to do an experiment? Pick a state with a moderate percentage of illegals. Enforce all the existing immigation laws there -- employer penalties, deportation, etc. -- and see what it looks like in a year. If the state still has a problem with employers hiring illegals and with deporting tens of thousands of illegals, we can say that draconian enforcement doesn't work.

only illegal because our immigration system is so messed up that it is arbitrary, capricious, and unjust (see 3 below).

and their crossing the border illegally is just a minor detail that we need to continue to ignore.

In this case, "regularization" shall mean sentencing them to some legal penalty that does not include deportation;

Will it be a higher fine than the normal charge by a Coyote to come in? I have not seen any figures that indicate that. So what you are saying is pay the US instead of Coyotes and Ollie Ollie Ox in Free.

to have the illegal entry not prevent them from being granted a work visa, assuming they should have been granted one in the first place

Should have you say? I reject the premise that anyone except for US Citizens has a right To entry into the US.

Nor do I agree that we should regularise a number equivalent to the last 20 years of naturalization before those who have tried to put up with the capricious nature of the system and did not enter illegally.

As for the system being capricious that is true. but there are reasons.

Before entry is allowed on a Non-immigrant visa an overwhelming need to return has to be shown.

Certain documents and proofs are required which unfortunately in some areas of the world are quite easily forged.

SO it is the situation that if the Interviewing Officer determines for ANY reason including a gut feeling from years of interviews that the person in question may not return to their Nation of Originm they can deny entry and there is no recourse.

In a perfect world that is patently unfair, in the real world, with the conditions faced by our Interviewers it is good sense.

There is NO right to entry to this country it is a privalege we extend or withold at our descretion.

I await the charge of being anti-immigrant, but I will only accept it as valid by anyone who has ever written a letter to immigration varifying that a Citizen/Alien marriage is indeed a true marriage and not an attempt to avoid immigration law.,

Oh and done so more than once.

I have.

I agree that a fence by itself is futile.

We need to target illegal alien employers

Deny welfare benifits to illegal aliens with the only exception being transportation home.

Deny federal funds to sanctuary areas.
With strong and punitive measures, remove the bait and the problem will solve itself

Most importantly we need to stop the ridiculous drawn out legal proceedings for deportation.

In Chatanouga not long ago a man plead Not Guilty to illegal entry who had been deported

SEVEN Times previously.

CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee — An illegal immigrant who has been arrested previously on drug and firearms charges and deported seven times Friday pleaded not guilty to illegally re-entering the United States.

Felipe Garcia-Morales, 28, a citizen of Mexico, entered the plea and agreed to be represented by a federal public defender.

all that should be required in a situation like this is verification of identity, we certainly do not need to pay for a federal public defender.

Dafydd-

I’ve changed my opinion a bit since our last go-round on this subject.

I still think that a secure border with fences, virtual fences, border guards, etc. is essential and a good first step. But I have come to realize that border security alone will be totally inadequate to stem the tide of illegal aliens. (No, I still don’t buy your “spillway” argument.)

I recently heard, from what seemed an authoritative source, that a substantial majority of the illegal alien population in the US came here by routes other than sneaking across the border out in the boondocks. Most illegals arrive the same way other people do -- by plane, car, bus … whatever.

Upon hearing this I gave myself a big, figurative “doh” slap. (I didn’t need a real one -- my wife takes care of that often enough.)

Of course! In our part of the country, far from the southern border, I am aware of a number of illegal aliens who arrived here in airplanes. They may not have been technically illegal when they arrived, because they had visas -- usually tourist visas, sometimes student or work visas. But lots of tourist visas are obtained under false pretenses by people intending to stay here and work, at least for a while.

The nice thing is that in order to qualify for a visa, the applicant needs to show at least some financial wherewithal. So we get a much better class of scofflaw here.
:-)

Bottom line: Sealing the border will keep out lots of the riffraff. But if we want to stop most illegal immigration, we’ll either have to find ways to track foreign visitors during their stays or prevent them from finding employment.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)