The public opinion polling available on immigration is so confused and contradictory that I think anyone who claims to be super-confident about this is deluding himself, but this presentation from Third Way seems fairly convincing to me. The main point to make is that only a amnesty plan path to citizenship that includes a fine turns illegal immigrants and the businesses that hire them into taxpayers.
« Maybe Not So Volatile? | Main | Leahy for Obama »
Tough, Fair, Practical
17 Jan 2008 11:46 am
Comments (18)
James, please stop calling everyone who has trouble with illegal immigration a racist. There are plenty of us on the Left who think that illegal immigrants result in lower wages for America's working class, particularly blacks -- and Latinos. Any solution that does not embrace tough workplace verification will only result in another flood of cheap labor to be exploited by corporations.
I actually think that Bush could actually help his party a great deal by offering a broad "amnesty" to illegal immigrants.
Though this is big drum that gets beat regularly by Lou Dobbs, Savage, Limbaugh etc. I think its a loser for the general election. I think many are turned off by the racial tones of this issue and will reject an overly aggressive Republican in the General Election. Business will quietly thank Bush for taking this issue off the table.
It will never happen but one can hope. But what's 12 million more to the list W. will be pardoning in his administration over the next year.
James, please stop calling everyone who has trouble with illegal immigration a racist.
I guess I laid on the snark too heavily. Slipsok, I am in agreement that illegal immigration results in lower wages for America's working class.
My point was that nothing remotely resembling a reality-based discussion of America's immigration policy is occurring right now--for example, a debate over the need for "tough workplace verification" vs. the inevitable loss of personal privacy such verification would entail, or a pragmatic look at how workable "sealing the borders" might actually be, or a consideration of how much consumer food-prices would likely increase if growers were to stop using migrant labor. The actual debate is being conducted in fear-mongering, codedly-racist terms that make it unlikely any effective change will ever occur.
"There are plenty of us on the Left who think that illegal immigrants result in lower wages for America's working class, particularly blacks -- and Latinos. Any solution that does not embrace tough workplace verification will only result in another flood of cheap labor to be exploited by corporations."
Hallelujah. If we 'racists' decide to relax and watch the march to a half billion residents by '50 from the sidelines, does that mean I'll be able to afford a staff of personal attendants to wait on me in my dotterage? Only if I can keep my wages in the top 10% bracket or better.
Look, I'm generally on the pro-Immigration side, and I'd probably agree that some sort of properly-structured "amnesty" would make pretty good sense from the "policy" perspective.
But policy is NOT politics. And any politician or journalist who actually believes that some sort of "amnesty" will sell politically in today's America without some exceptionally subtle and shrewd packaging and complex policy-combinations is just a deluded moron. Basically, all the various DC/NYC political/media types only talk to each other, and fool themselves into thinking they've reached a national consensus, then produce some highly-misleading polls to prove it.
Look at how Eliot Spitzer in super-pro-immigration NY got himself almost destroyed politically over that silly Drivers' License effort, which also makes perfectly good sense from a *policy* perspective.
Maybe the Democrats should additionally run on a platform of removing "In God We Trust" from all our currency because some small slice of Americans actually worship multiple Gods (like our friend Mitt!).
Is there any available data behind this report? Maybe I'm just missing it on the site, but the Powerpoint includes a handful of data points, with no context. What's here provides very little to back up the claims being made. Did they get this out of Microtrends?
Illegals don't need a "path to citizenship". They're already citizens - of Mexico, where they have voting rights as well.
The idea that we have "obligations" toward Mexican citizens simply by virtue of their defiance of our immigration laws is absurd.
My own crazy idea, in two easy steps. 1. Make hiring an illegal immigrant a felony offense, punishable by a minimum of 10 years in jail. 2. Grant citizenship to any illegal immigrant who turns in their employer.
I believe you will find a dramatic decrease in the number of illegal immigrants hired. The employers, facing a severe worker shortage, will actually start lobbying to streamline the immigration procedures instead of cheating the system. The immigrants will then find it easier to get in legally, and be paid a fair wage. With fewer illegals crossing the border, the border becomes more secure. Everybody wins.
@Tel
Yes, because our legal system will be completely able to handle the court cases and appeals involved with that.
But, if we're so concerned with their impact on social services, why don't we just tax them? Of course, since we can't tax them, we can just levy a tax on the next best thing: industries that use illegal immigration.
And to not be unfair with this hypothetical ham-handed tax, we can always offer a waiver if employers can prove to the federal government that they are not hiring undocumented workers.
Unfortunately, the file isn't in a format I support, so I was unable to look at it.
But, I'm going to guess that it's missing vital information and might even containing misleading statements or outright lies. And, I'd be willing to bet that if they advocated it in a public forum, and I was allowed to ask them several questions, I could completely discredit them and their plans.
Since MattY is obviously unable to think these things through, let me suggest that he asks other, smarter people to help him out.
So put a tax on all industries - if there's a single industry that's illegal immigrant free, I don't know it - and force all employers to prove a negative to avoid the tax. That seems even more difficult than my idea. Besides, it doesn't fix the underlying problem: there are big monetary incentives for both employers and immigrants to try to cheat the system.
With my idea, the incentives are turned upside-down. What's the one thing that an immigrant would likely want more than a US job? US citizenship. Money would no longer be the primary motivator for them. For the employers, there probably wouldn't be a huge crush of prosecutions. All we would need is about a dozen or two examples made, and employers would get the picture. A couple dozen cases, processed within three years at most; or a permanent tax and intrusion by the Feds into local businesses.
What the American public wants when it comes to illegal immigrants is "No Mas." They're not sure what to do with the ones already here, but they are dead sure they don't want the problem to get bigger. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is Stop Digging.
But that's what's left out of most MSM polls, which focused only on the illegals already here. And that's why the DC Establishment routinely is defeated when they put their amnesty plans up to a vote.
Tel: we don't really need new plans. We just need to enforce the current laws and prevent corrupt politicians from trying to undermine enforcement.
If we could do that, the problem would solve itself over time.
And, in order to do that, go to public appearances by those politicians, pundits, religious leaders, etc. who oppose enforcement and public discredit them by pointing out their lies or flaws in their proposals. Then, upload the exchange to video sharing sites.
We just need to do more than slap employers on their wrist for hiring illegal immigrants. I refuse to believe that when an entire workforce is illegal immigrants that the employer didn't know. Make the fines high enough that the cheap labor just isn't worth it. At least this way businesses would start lobbying to make INS a competent department.
@Tel
As I said it would get bogged own in litigation. Add to the fact that its statistically easier to get off with white collar crime, and I don't see this working. Then there's determining who's ultimately responsible, whether it's the owner, or the HR person, or whatever. If fighting pollution is any indication, then it would take years for the courts to process the cases.
I still think a tax may work. Most employers would end up just shifting the prices onto consumers and this would show just how much undocumented workers are costing.
TLB, I'm emailing you the powerpoint as a pdf file.
Tel, You're an idiot. Let's see, a party to a crime can gain a benefit by turning in his co-conspirator, even if he instigated if not framed the hapless defendant... hmmm, that can't possibly be a good idea. There's a reason why laws aren't written that way anymore.
It used to be common for states to have criminal conversation (i.e. sex with a married person) and alienation of affection (i.e. inducing a married person to leave their spouse) tort claims on the books. For morality reasons, these laws make sense. Who wouldn't have liked to see Jerry Seinfeld pay millions to the poor sap he stole Jessica from?
More commonly, a grifter couple would have the wife seduce a rich bachelor (often tricked into thinking she was single) and then have the "wronged" husband threaten to sue unless he was paid off. Because the whole blackmail thing got out of hand, every state but one (North Carolina) has repealed adultery tort claims.
Likewise with your immigration reform, there is every incentive for an illegal alien to trick an employer into hiring him and then once he's on the payroll, demanding a very generous severance package.
Regarding "enforcing the current laws," how is that going to be possible, let alone helpful? Who is going to report these criminals? The companies hiring the illegal immigrants certainly aren't - they're also violating the law. The illegal immigrants aren't either - they're getting the financial benefit of working here. Nor will the legal co-workers, who will also be out of a job if their boss gets arrested. So it will fall to the government - either state or (most likely) federal - to do the investigating. How many agents (and agents' salaries) would this require? Better to set up a self-policing system.
To beowulf - Yes, that would be the idea. Employers would know that they're very vulnerable to those sorts of false claims. They'd be idiots if they didn't. So, they would have every incentive to check the citizen status of all workers before they're hired. Set up a simple system to check the citizenship status of all workers to be hired - name, social security number, and photo ID. If the employer doesn't perform that check, they can be prosecuted. No more excuse of "I didn't know he wasn't a citizen." (Which is currently the case anyway). If you're an employer, it's your job to check. And if you can demonstrate that you took reasonable steps to check the citizenship status, then you won't be prosecuted.
Comments closed January 31, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The main point to make is that only a amnesty plan path to citizenship that includes a fine turns illegal immigrants and the businesses that hire them into taxpayers.
What? An immigration policy that actually acknowledges the factual realities of the situation? How irrelevant.
The immigration "issue" is 100% about racist demagoggin,' mostly on such Dobbsian themes as "seal the borders." Any possibly-implementable approach to immigration reform is a guaranteed non-starter politically.
Posted by James Gary | January 17, 2008 12:17 PM