Mexico accounts for the largest share of illegal immigrants. This is shameful because Mexico is not a poor country. The truth is, their wealthiest don’t want to pay enough taxes to provide social services. Meanwhile, remittances account for over one third of Mexico’s GNP. Why are all these trade deals so darned one sided when Mexico could, if it wanted, provide good paying jobs for their citizens.

The longer this illegal immigrant issue goes unresolved the worse off we will be because as I type I can assure you that our borders are being flooded with illegals to take advantage of what they perceive as another amnesty deal.
Something should have been done long ago.

Many here believe there should be no educational requirements. This bill doesn’t require that every immigrant be highly educated. I do believe that our current immigration policy already accounts for different educational levels and how many we accept in each category. The problem now is most of the people coming illegal are uneducated peoples. We do not need a vast population of low education level people because we have people in this country now we did not graduate from high school. What you will have is our citizens competing for the same jobs and thus lowering the wage for all.

In the H1B1 category employers are allowed to pay those workers less than an American worker. Consequently, we have people in computer science and engineering who lose their jobs in favor of H1B1 visa holders.

There are so many interrelated issues contributing to the problem of undocumented workers although the biggest is coming here uninvited.

It’s our trade policy, our foreign policy in general, and people willing to break our laws to get inside our country. Why aren’t their native countries doing something to make them want to stay in their own country? Where is their responsibility? The United States cannot be the world’s keeper.

Close the borders, truly enforce punishment against employers who hire illegals because they know exactly what they are doing whether they feign innocence or not, pressure the countries who send their citizens to the U.S. to do something about their own economy, and raise the federal minimum wage in this country and enforce it so all workers are paid a living wage. If employers had to pay a living minimum wage they would hire U.S. citizens over foreign nationals.

If we are so short of workers (I question that) than make certain any temporary worker program requires a federal minimum wage regardless of worker status.

I really don’t buy that Americans won’t do those jobs because it leaves out the end. Americans won’t do those jobs without a fair wage, benefits, and worker safety enforcement. You have to wonder just who was doing those jobs before the illegal immigrants took them. The answer, of course, was Americans until employers could hire an illegal and pay them less. There is also the problem of the lazy American.

I worked in the fields on the family farm, hired out to hoe beans, and detassled corn, and babysat until I graduated from high school. A lot of these jobs could be filled by high school and college students and our own population of those without a high school education who would take these jobs year round.

The packing industry for years paid good wages and benefits. Then the employers took the packing plants out of the cities into the rural communities and hired low paid workers and there went the good paying jobs.

American employers are our own worst enemy along with our own government.

Everyone seem to be discussing this legislation as if it exists in a vacuum. We already have a ton of immigration law. It’s being ignored. I want the existing law enforced and I want the borders protected.

When that happens, talk to me about new law.

Marisa McNee (CCIR) @ 78

Quoting Ezra, who I think has summarized this issue as simply as I’ve seen it:

The particular political circumstances we’re in are nearly unique: Bush has nothing left to lose but his involvement still provides cover for Republicans, Democrats can get an immigration bill without full ownership over it, the space is open for the subject because the President won’t allow action on other liberal priorities and the Congress won’t countenance any conservative agenda items, and so on. You have the RNC defending a bill that, were it offered under a Democratic president, they’d be tearing apart. Meanwhile, this just won’t be a priority for the next president: President Democrat will want to do health care, not amnesty, and President Republican will want to get reelected someday. So this is the shot.

So then why do you say that Ezra has “suggested” punting on the issue? Also, Atrios – based on Ezra’s post – recanted his suggestion that we punt. Maybe it’s just a little confusing construction, but I think you’re imputing the wrong motives to those two.

Actually, my point was that Ezra and Atrios were suggesting the opposite, that despite what some strategists might suggest, the issue should be dealt with now. Perhaps that wasn’t clear? My apologies, Ezra and Atrios did not suggest we should punt, their point was to the contrary.

Quoting Ezra, who I think has summarized this issue as simply as I’ve seen it:

The particular political circumstances we’re in are nearly unique: Bush has nothing left to lose but his involvement still provides cover for Republicans, Democrats can get an immigration bill without full ownership over it, the space is open for the subject because the President won’t allow action on other liberal priorities and the Congress won’t countenance any conservative agenda items, and so on. You have the RNC defending a bill that, were it offered under a Democratic president, they’d be tearing apart. Meanwhile, this just won’t be a priority for the next president: President Democrat will want to do health care, not amnesty, and President Republican will want to get reelected someday. So this is the shot.

So then why do you say that Ezra has “suggested” punting on the issue? Also, Atrios – based on Ezra’s post – recanted his suggestion that we punt. Maybe it’s just a little confusing construction, but I think you’re imputing the wrong motives to those two.

Douglas @ 34

Obviously, the worker program unless it is improved is problematic. If it is a churn, burn, and return “guestworker” program, it undercuts U.S. workers by creating a second-class labor market with limited rights. It is also bad for the U.S. because, based on about 400 years of history, some people come and go back, but others put down roots, fall in love, start careers, and want to stay. If we don’t have a legal way for people to stay, then we run the risk of a growing pool of underground workers.

That’s a very powerful point. How do you think it can be rewritten to make it better, in terms of what’s actually possible, factoring in support of various congressional members, etc? Given the fact that it’s crunch time, I think some focus on realistic goals would be very helpful to our community when the pick up the phone and call their reps.

Ideally, any bill would include continuity of employment here (employers AND employees would like that — why get adept at a job and then have to go home?) AND a REALISTIC chance at eventual citizenship and a unified family.

We should push for those fixes now — with the understanding that if we fail to get them, we absolutely need to regroup and make sure that the House does better.

i am very concerned about the lack of transparency to this process. i’d be much more comfortable if we could have a series of congressional hearings to explain the pros and cons of various policies. i’d also like to see proposed legislation made available to the public to read and study and comment on.

ok. that was dream world… but, i’m still uncomfortable with the big push to rush this through. right now, i just don’t trust the process. can anyone reassure me on this? or should i be concerned?

The Senate is the starting point.

The House Judiciary Subcom with jurisdiction — Zoe Lofgren’s Immigration Committee — has been holding a series of low visibility but highly informative hearings. They will begin marking up legislation next month, and that process should be more regular.

Then, following House passage and a debate on the floor there… we’d have a conference convene that would produce something requiring additional votes in each chamber.

In other words — this process is far from over, and much more openness is soon to follow.

The Senate process was complicated by any number of factors, several of which people can probably make educated guesses about, but which might not be politic for me to mention explicitly. :)

Douglas

I would expect that those who are allowed in legally would make use of that opportunity- and those who are denied legal entry would use other means as they do now- which means that any restrictions on WHO- or HOW MANY are nonsense.

Part of the issue is that we believe that immigrants here are smart enough to be responding to the job market. While the U.S. is creating enough low end jobs that it is now attractive for people to seek to escape desparate circumstances elsewhere in the Americas, if that demand is sated via legal channels, future undocumenteds will find an unwelcome job market and stop coming.

Let’s now underestimate the effectiveness of the networks of communication between immigrants and their home countries.

Or since it would benefit mainy same-sex couples do we get thrown into it being solely a gay rights issue? Since Family Reunification is an important issue, I’d wish more people would be concerned about our families than someone’s great Aunt once-removed getting a green card.

Otherwise, I don’t see too much good in the current bill. I think all current family based preferences should be preserved, though it might help to give consular officers overseas a few more tools to root out the bad ones (i.e., based on fake relationships). Furthermore, guest worker programs never, ever work. Look at the experiences in W. Europe: better to give everyone who works hard and pays taxes a stake in the country and a chance at citizenship.

Finally, the wall . . .. Walls never work. Sure, more CBP and ICE agents, sensors, aircraft, etc., may help. Going after employers would be much better.
But what chance is there of that?

Ultimately, a NAFTA for labor would be the best solution.