Just in case there is any confusion: Democrats can disagree on Immigration

[Skinner]

I like discussions where DUers disagree, because they're much more interesting to read. I also think they require a lot more intellectual firepower to participate in, because any holes in logic or inconsistencies will immediately be exploited by a competent opponent. What sucks about disagreement on Democratic Underground is that some people are too lazy to support their own position by arguing the merits, and instead just engage in personal attacks. Those people ruin the discussions for everyone, which is why we have rules against that type of thing.

Immigration is one of those topics where progressives can and do disagree. Progressives who are generally supportive of immigration point to our country's history as a nation of immigrants, and consider it appropriate to keep our doors open to immigrants who are looking for a better life. Progressives who are generally opposed to immigration see it as a source of cheap labor for corporate interests in this country, and believe that it may drive down wages and decrease job security for working people. My impression is that both sides of the argument make good points, and have plenty of solid facts to support their position. I tend to think that for progressives, choosing a side on this would be based more on personal priorities than on a radically different reading of the facts. So, our side is split.

But here's what makes this particular issue so sticky for progressives to discuss: The Republicans are also split. They also have very large and diametrically opposed pro- and anti-immigration wings in their party. But both of those groups are anathema to many progressives. The GOP pro-immigration wing is made up of wealthy corporatists. The GOP anti-immigration wing is made up largely of racists.

So, inevitably, people on DU who are too lazy to support their own positions simply accuse the other side of being freepers or corporatists or racists or whatever. Which is totally lame.

So, my advice to all of you is this: Cut the namecalling. Cut the guilt by association. Assume that other DUers represent the more progressive elements of the other side, and act accordingly. Doing so will make this place a lot more welcoming and interesting for everyone.

Thanks.

[seabeyond]

1. firstly i haven't been in the threads, because both sides of dem

reasoning makes sense to me. both the cheap labor to corporate, and allowing all who want a better life into this country. so i have just not gone into the threads. but secondly, how funny we are paralleled to the repug party, pro and anti, but for totally different reasons. i just find that fascinating

agree with you post skinner, and the fence sitter i am on this issue

[Dawgs]

24. I agree.

I think we are talking about two different issues here. Wanting immigrants to have a better life and corporations using cheap labor are not opposing issues. It is possible to agree with both.

[seabeyond]

28. there you go. and in 80's i think we were able to do that more,

than any other period, so far. i saw them go after corporation in cheap labor and hiring especially in calif. my father was president at a corporation, and i was in the restaurant business as an employee. also there was an effort in yes, the dreaded "americanizing", merging the mexican population into our society. where they were contributing in the u.s. learning the language, and becoming american. that is not a bad thing for the children and families to belong, adn ffeel they were a contributing factor in our society. that is how outsides saw it. allowed perception, ergo interaction to be different from today. it is inclusive. and it is in female in our society, blacks, mexicans, muslims and jews. the chrisitan fundie works on exclusion. they do it in religion, personal environment.....

so anyway. we cna do this, for both the good of country, and mexican brothers and sisters, if we chose to, when we chose to. when reason and effort is a desire.

[Career Prole]

55. Got room on that fence for one more?

I promise not to fidget. :D

[Jersey Devil]

2. Wow! I am impressed and not just buttering up the management

I don't think I've ever read a more succinct description of the various positions on immigration. Short, sweet and to the point.

One other thing that should be considered I think - a lot of opinions on immigration are formed based on geographical location and the affects of illegal immigration in those areas regardless of general political beliefs.

[bridgit]

3. well i mean, why have borders at all if you're not going to enforce...

the laws that maintain them and the citizenry they define :shrug:

[Bridget Burke]

4. But why do so many "Democrats" support a Republican bill?

They seem extremely offended that people would actually take to the streets to protest Republican policies.

[MrTriumph]

5. Republicans LOVE open Borders to create cheaper labor!

Here in Ft. Worth, Texas, you can get your ceramic tile floor laid for the same price paid in... 1986! Do you want to know how that's possible? It hasn't been an advancement in technology.

[Skinner]

7. My impression is that most of the DU discussions about Immigration...

...have little or nothing to do with the Sensenbrenner bill. If you take a look at the thread topics, most of them are very general discussions about immigration, which do not require any knowledge or understanding of the Sensenbrenner bill, and which split DU members into the two generic progressive groups: "generally supportive of immigration" and "generally opposed to immigration."

I cannot speak for anyone but myself. But my impression is that those who are arguing "generally opposed to immigration" are making the case that something needs to be done about it. But they are not championing the Sensenbrenner bill.

In fact, my guess is that most DUers don't know the details of the bill. It would probably be worthwhile for someone to start a thread explaining what is included in his bill. It seems pretty awful to me.

[sadiesworld]

11. Shouldn't that be "generally opposed to ILLEGAL immigration"?

[Skinner]

12. I'm not trying to provide an in-depth analysis of each side.

I'm just drawing very broad general lines, so people have some idea of what I'm talking about. I'll leave all of you to hash out the spectifics.

[OKNancy]

16. I did on Sunday

This was before the changes made:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=758767&mesg_id=758767

I am in the "we need to control immigration, but not with this bill" group.

[FlaGranny]

57. "Illegal" immigration, Skinner,

NOT immigration itself - at least in the thread I read - I didn't read all the threads. I'm on the side against ILLEGAL immigration, but am fully supportive if it's legal. This country, I believe, has lower standards of immigration than many other countries, and I would support increasing legal immigration limits, but applying a more fair system than we have now.

[frankly_fedup2]

65. I think the U.S. is pretty strict on legal immigration for student Visas

or part-time worker visas. To be able to come into this country without going through some type of lottery for one's specific country (they allow so many Russians, so many French, so many Japanese, etc), and I think they need a sponsor over here (could be wrong on that one).

The last time I read up on legal immigration was when I was getting emails constantly from a young man who claimed to be Pakistani. He begged me for money all the time. He claimed neither his mother nor his father were capable of working any longer and he had seven sisters. Since he was the only male in the family, it was up to him to support them all. He even asked if I would sponsor him so he could come to the U.S. and get a job. I didn't know if he was on the up and up or some con man just using this sad story to get money out of me. I told him my husband told me I could not contact him anymore via chat or email and wished him well. I had to change my emails because he kept contacting me.

Anyway, when all that was going on, I checked and it's pretty hard unless you have a sponsor. I believe right now the Somali's are coming in more than any other group. My friend lives in Columbus, Ohio, and she told me she feels like she is in a foreign country. She seems to think that all the Somali's are being sent to Columbus. I believe so many were to go to each state. I'm really not sure. My friend told me that the Somali's do not work because most of them do not speak English. They are in the process of that as well as our cultures. They are giving housing by our government until they feel they can make it out on their own. When I visited her, I never noticed any foreign people in the stores or neighborhoods we walked in.

I'm for anyone legally; however, illegally and then standing out in the streets demanding rights while they are carrying a Mexican flag . . .that just is not helping their cause. Plus, why aren't they being arrested if suspected to be illegal? Anyone?

[FlaGranny]

76. It IS difficult to come here, but

it is a lot easier than it is in some countries. And, actually, making legal immigration a bit easier would be okay.

I DO wonder what would happen if a bunch of US citizens illegally entered Mexico and demonstrated in the streets demanding the rights of Mexican citizens. They DO have a more accessible health care system than we do.

The ONLY and FINAL solution to immigration is a one-world government with world citizenship and visa and passport-free travel with no residency requirements, and equal pay and benefits everywhere. I don't think that is coming any time soon.

[frankly_fedup2]

78. Unfortunately, the neocons are biding their time until there is a one-

World Government (U.S. ruled, of course), one-World currency, One World Leader (yep, they are going to make it a Bush (somehow and someway), it will be the next generation of Bush's. Already Jeb Bush's son is on the state legislature. Very handsome young man, may be very intelligent; however, he may have a Hollywood smile but have a brain like his uncle. PNAC pretty much tells us all we need to know and they don't even try to hide it from us.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html

[FlaGranny]

79. I shudder at the thought of any one-world neocon

government. Ideally, it would be a more liberal government. I think I'd like The Netherlands version.

[frankly_fedup2]

81. From what I've heard, I'm kind of at the point where I would love to

live in the Netherlands. Not that I do not love my country (please do not go there :-) but everyone that I have met online (as far as boards with similar interests) are people from the Netherlands. I did talk to a guy from Iran (he said). He said some pretty scary things to me about what was going on and what they were going to do too; however, I could have been talking to anyone just wanting to scare me but one never knows?????

Isn't the Premiere of the Netherlands that lady that Conan O'Brien claims to look like? He went there and it was so pretty. Cold but pretty.

[Cobalt Violet]

15. I don't think they do.

[rman]

6. Another position:

the doors to immigration should not be closed, but immigration should be controlled,

and

there are means to affect immigration other then 'the door at the border',

and

by no means should immigrants be exploited as cheap labor.


Which brings me to "other means to affect immigration":

If the US can sign agreements that affect the rights of workers (which include wages) in other nations in a negative way (ie NAFTA), then the US can also sign agreements that affect workers rights and wages in a positive way - this would give people elsewhere less reason to migrate in the first place.

[Skinner]

9. Yes, that is another position.

The point of my post was to very broadly outline the two camps. But the reality is that there are many more than two opinions on this.

8. thanks for trying to keep the discussion open

Playing on people's base emotions can be a way to project your own prejudices and fears onto another person, and make a mob mentality .

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. talk about a crappy politial issue

neither side can really win on immigration. And neither side can come up with a solution that would satisfy either side in the debate.

It should, at the very least, be interesting to watch this play out.

:popcorn:

[PsN2Wind]

13. Thanks Skinner

This issue has raised more debate and generated more vitriol than almost any other I recall on the site. Those of us that are anti amnesty are regularly referred to as racists, xenophobes, bigots, etc. I really see little name-calling in the other direction.

[Coexist]

14. thanks a bunch for this - I have started about 10 posts

on immigration threads to add to the discussion, but then hit the "Back" button on my browser because I knew I would immediately be called ugly names or ridiculed by people I generally agree with on other things.

Please - those who believe in following Legal Immigration policies generally do so because it protects both the immigrants rights as new citizens, prevents them from being abused, and protects living wages for those already here. We do not hate "brown people". Two of my children are half "brown people."

I do not think there is a Liberal on this board who believes in prosecuting good samaritans for helping feed the hungry or house the homeless. I do, however, believe that hiring illegals as a cost-saving measure hurts both the illegal immigrant and the legal immigrant or born-here that would take the job otherwise. There should be stiff fines for the employer, not the employee. If an employer ends up paying as much in fines as he would for union-wage payroll should he be caught - it would not make financial sense for them to try to cut costs by hiring illegal workers.

We have United States citizens (born-here and legal immigrants) and Illegal Immigrants who:
Clean sewers
Do landscaping
Clean pools
Clean homes and offices
are Industrious
are Lazy
Suck the system dry
Contribute to the system
Work hard
Hardly work
Contribute positively to society
Belong to gangs
Purchase goods
Steal goods
Smuggle drugs
Work with children

Please, stop with the sweeping generalizations - on both sides. Not all immigrants are hard workers just trying to live the American dream. Not all legal citizens feel 'dirty jobs' are beneath them. People are people - we all have our strengths and our faults.

Can we please try to be more realistic and less abusive on this topic?

*sigh* I'll put my asbestos suit on now.

[NMDemDist2]

18. no flames here FLDem, living in PHX I know the same thing

My dear neighbor 2 doors down is the best guy in the neighborhood and his dad still lives in Mexico and his wife is working on getting her citizenship.

He's coming by tomorrow to work with us on a big project, I'm gonna ask him what he thinks and what his church folks think.

Since I canvassed hispanic neighborhoods for MoveOn in '04 and they were generally AGAINST illegal immigration (citing losing jobs, lowered wages and violence from the Coyotes in their neighborhoods)

I think we can all agree the draconian sections in the House bill against helping folks is horrible. The question is is there any section in that bill to make employers liable? If not, there's your answer. It's just a cover for Big Business' cheap labor and a way to cut humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable. Kinda the GOP in a nutshell huh?

[Minnesota Libra]

17. Skinner you did a much better job - as usual - of presenting the.........

.......two sides of this issue than I could have.

I never have minded someone calling me on the facts or challenging why I believe something. When someone challenges me it makes me think and has been known to make me reconsider my stance on an issue. I've actually become even more liberal on some things since being at DU because I was calmly presented with facts. So I'm all for this approach.

Like you, I just hate the name calling. Yet, having been there - up close and personal - on a couple of issues I'm anything but liberal and progressive on. That's when I get the FR on a good day and more on a not so good day.

That's about the only thing that disappoints me about DU. For some, if everyone doesn't stay lock-step with the progressive mentality the name calling resembles the name calling seen on other web sites, and we all know where. That is truly sad too.:cry:

Am sure others have experienced this as well. So thank you for putting into words what we all experience from time to time.

Ok, I've had my little :rant: and I feel better now.

[madokie]

19. You have to believe in something before you can be anything,

right or wrong. The important thing to always remember is to be open to learning something new. I love it when I have believed in something for years and then one day I learn that I was wrong. To me that is what it's all about, learning not dictating.
I also think if we as a country are seeing a large influx of people wanting to come to the US we should take a look and find out why they have such a strong desire to leave their homeland. Work with them to improve the conditions that causes this to be and in the process we will have cultivated a friendship. Plus another culture we will be so happy to visit with.

[jarab]

20. Thanks for the simplified version of truth.

I hope it assists all who post on this critical subject.
...O...

[TahitiNut]

21. Amen. Message, NOT messenger. One quibble, however ...

(I don't know why message v. messenger seems obscure to so many.) :eyes:


I believe it's far too often 'spin' to conflate 'immigration' with 'illegal immigration' (a SUBSET of which is 'undocumented workers'). It's a bit like calling a 'burglar' a 'dinner guest' and claiming that either (a) anyone who eats my food is a burglar or (b) my opposition to burglary is due to my hatred of dinner guests.

[johnnie]

22. Thanks for saying this

I am one of those who are not quite sure what needs to be done and would like to read some good discussion on the topic to educate myself a bit more on it all. There has been some great discussion on it here at DU, but then the "name callers" come out and turn the conversation into shit. "You don't like brown people" or "you are a freeper" doesn't take the discussion any further and it is not helping a lot of us trying to see everyone's point of view.


I hope some people take your advice Skinner, it would really help a lot of us to be able to discuss and debate this topic with less aggravation and maybe some of us will be able to learn some things.

[dubyaD40web]

23. And...

Our side can actually have an educated conversation about it unlike the freeps.

[Neil Lisst]

25. Great post on the issue.

I do not think those who disagree with me on illegal immigration are bad people. I know that there is a humanitarian aspect, which is why I favor making illegal immigration more difficult to accomplish, and why I favor sanctions against employers, but do not favor sanctions against the workers. In fact, I favor a citizenship track, IF we can stop the overwhelming flow of new workers.

My position is the same it has been for decades, all as a Democrat. Employers - largely Republican employers - use illegal workers because it's cheaper and easier. Who wants to listen to "citizens" when they talk about their "rights" as American citizens? I'm being facetious, of course, but that is how the vested class thinks. They love having employees who cannot report them for health, safety or wage violations.

To me the problem of illegal immigration is similar to the outsourcing problem. Both see jobs that would otherwise be worked by Americans worked by cheaper foreign labor.

We have spent decades as a nation creating laws that protect American workers - laws about health, safety, and wages. We have therefore built into our system higher costs than would be seen in other nations. It's "cheating" to defeat that system by hiring illegal immigrants, and it robs the government treasuries of the money they depend on to support social programs.

Who benefits financially from illegal immigration? Primarily large business owners, who make more profit for themselves.

[Joe Fields]

26. Republicans may be split on this issue, but once again...

we are playing right into the White House's hands. They once again have managed to change the item on the menu for public discourse. And although immigration is an important issue, we should NOT allow ourselves to be distracted by this type of sleight-of-hand. We need to remain focused, especially in this all important election year on all of this administration's failures and scandals. I just hate when focus is turned away from the war, Jack Abramoff, Valerie Plame, port security, and all other corrupt business the White House has conducted.

[robinlynne]

52. I agree Joe

and I think this is really the bigger, more important picture.

[BrklynLiberal]

59. Ditto.

[SmokingJacket]

27. Fine post, Skinner.

I have mostly stayed out of these threads because of the overheated rhetoric. I believe everyone should have the same opportunities my ancestors (and living immigrant relatives) had to seek the best lives possible -- but I also see unregulated immigration as an opportunity for business to exploit desperate people and keep wages as low as possible.

:shrug: So I've been keeping my trap shut.

But the Republicans are trying to punish people who HELP illegal immigrants, and that's cruel.

[QC]

29. Thanks--this really needed to be said. n/t

[RagingInMiami]

30. In the past when I've been arguing with people on whatever subject

And then they end up accusing me of having "freeper values" or whatever, that is when I know they have run out of things to say. That is when I usually end the conversation because it will only start going in circles.

[Maestro]

31. I was called an immigration "apologist" indirectly

in one thread, but I still stand by what I argued. However I have not been called a freeper yet. That would have sent me over the top.

Good post anyhow Skinner.

[RagingInMiami]

33. I haven't been a freeper on the immigration issue

I'm far from it on this issue. But I have been called that on the gun issue.

[Maestro]

47. You mean you shoot things other than with

your camera? ;)

[RagingInMiami]

75. Fortunately

I haven't had to shoot with anything other than my camera. But if the moment ever arises, I would not hesitate.

[Pacifist Patriot]

32. Thank you for putting into succinct words exactly why I...

am a fence sitter on this issue and can never participate in discussion about it. There are good points to be made both pro and con. I never feel like I understand the full ramifications enough to make an informed decision as to my own personal views. It's very frustrating.

[kurth]

34. Many blacks are against illegals, and many illegals are not Hispanic

Hate to borrow Thomas Sowell, but he summarizes this rather well:

GUESTS OR GATE CRASHERS?
by Thomas Sowell / March 27, 2006

.... How often have we heard that illegal immigrants "take jobs that Americans will not do"? What is missing in this argument is what is crucial in any economic argument: price. Americans will not take many jobs at their current pay levels -- and those pay levels will not rise so long as poverty-stricken immigrants are willing to take those jobs. If Mexican journalists were flooding into the United States and taking jobs as reporters and editors at half the pay being earned by American reporters and editors, maybe people in the media would understand why the argument about "taking jobs that Americans don't want" is such nonsense.

Another variation on the same theme is that we "need" the millions of illegal aliens already in the United States. "Need" is another word that blithely ignores prices. If jet planes were on sale for a thousand dollars each, I would probably "need" a couple of them -- an extra one to fly when the first one needed repair or maintenance. But since these planes cost millions of dollars, I don't even "need" one. There is no fixed amount of "need," independently of prices, whether with planes or workers.

None of the rhetoric and sophistry that we hear about immigration deals with the plain and ugly reality: Politicians are afraid of losing the Hispanic vote and businesses want cheap labor. What millions of other Americans want has been brushed aside, as if they don't count, and they have been soothed with pious words. But now the voters are getting fed up, which is why there are immigration bills in Congress.

The old inevitability ploy is often trotted out in immigration debates: It is not possible to either keep out illegal immigrants or to expel the ones already here. If you mean stopping every single illegal immigrant from getting in or expelling every single illegal immigrant who is already here, that may well be true. But does the fact that we cannot prevent every single murder cause us to stop enforcing the laws against murder? ....

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=13412#

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We estimate about one in five Koreans in America is illegal," said Dae Joong Yoon, executive director of the Korean Resource Center in Los Angeles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032700636_2.html

[harpo]

35. great advice Skinner :)

[EFerrari]

36. It is possible to be a Democrat and be against "immigration"

but I don't think it's possible, Skinner, to be a progressive and hold that position.

Because the progressive position is not to punish the poor for their poverty or labor for their unemployment.

[mzmolly]

37. It could be argued that we punish the poor by importing slave labor.

I think that cuts both ways? It could also be argued that lax immigration standards weaken labor unions?

[EFerrari]

38. Isn't that just the corpos using one set of powerless people

against another? It's their wet dream.

They want SO badly for the progressive community to break up over this. In fact, they need us to.

They are screwed if we hang together. :)

[mzmolly]

39. We need a balance rather than a line in the sand.

Agree, we must hang together. :hi:

[Boojatta]

44. We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all be hanged separately.

[mainegreen]

40. Three cheers!

There's a reason you're in charge here, and it not just because you set this place up.

(well it is, but besides that)

:toast:

[thinkingwoman]

41. Thanks Skinner!

The namecalling is really ridiculous. Just in the last 30 minutes I've been called a racist AND a nazi...which I find really comical given that I'm Jewish. :eyes:

Anyway, thanks for your level-headed advice. Maybe it will get through to some people.

[earth mom]

42. Thank you Skinner.

I have no problem with immigration if people from ALL COUNTRIES are allowed here at the same time just as it was done 100 years or so ago.

However, the laws governing pay, benefits and working conditions must be the same for everyone if this happens. Businesses and Corporations should not be allowed to greedily make money off of other peoples misery or abject poverty. The exploitation of ALL people-be they white or brown or black or purple is what I most vehemently object to.

[hunter]

43. Immigration issues on DU...

I'm guessing that most posters here on DU are not part of any recent immigrant community. Even people who explain how they live in Southern California, or Arizona, or Texas are writing things on DU that make it entirely obvious they have few or no connections to the immigrant community. Having a Mexican clear your table at a restaurant or mow your lawn doesn't make you an expert on immigration issues.

I'm a white Californian. My parents, grandparents, etc, have lived in California and the western United States since the late 1800's. Before that they were immigrants.

I happened to grow up in a community that was white; almost disturbingly white. The university I graduated from was just as bad. I left forever in 1987 and I was glad to go.

Two of my wife's grandparents were born in Mexico. Our children have always lived in places where white people are not the majority. With only a few exceptions our children's' friends have parents or grandparents who were born in Mexico or other Central and South American nations, and many have cousins and other relatives who still live there.

In my community speaking Spanish is as common as English. Conversations often flow in a strange mix of the two languages. I'm not entirely clueless in Spanish, but I'm not fluent. If it ever bothered me that people around me were speaking Spanish I would get off my butt and learn more of the language. Meanwhile I take it in slowly by osmosis. My dad, and quite a few of his relatives learned Spanish simply because they worked with people who spoke Spanish and it made economic sense. It was the same in my mom's family.

Where I live, conversations I hear about immigration are startlingly different from the exchanges I'm reading on DU. By and large xenophobia here is something expressed by increasingly senile old white people who fondly remember when Mexicans, Blacks, and Asians were still segregated, and recent white immigrants to California and people from towns like the one I grew up in, who have rarely had any opportunities to interact with people of various ethnic backgrounds. Over the years I've met a few white "Middle Americans" who came here looking for work and fled as soon as they saw the public schools here are overwhelmingly Mexican-American and to a lesser extent Asian. Even kids who look "white" to outsiders are likely to have some hispanic or Asian heritage.

Nobody with any credibility believes that the immigration issue would be resolved if California was simply annexed by Mexico. People respect that the United States government is not as broken and corrupt as the Mexican government. Documented or undocumented workers, citizens or not, recent immigrants respect the United States. But the community is very sensitive to issues of racism and worker exploitation.

Most white Americans seem to be blissfully unaware of the racism that permeates the United States. "Brown" people don't have the same privileges that white people enjoy in white America. Brown people have to pay up front, white people can carry it on their tab. When a black or hispanic young adult male gets pulled over by the police in a white community he knows to put his hands where the police can see them and to be very polite. The police will walk up to his car with their hands on their guns. If there are two officers, one of them may stand behind the open police car door ready to shoot. But a white kid driving some fancy SUV his parents bought him can be a bit of a smart ass, and he won't be instantly knocked to the ground an cuffed. There are dozens of little social cues people who are not white must be aware of to avoid making white middle Americans "uncomfortable." If they don't follow these rules, white xenophobic Americans will instantly label them as some sort of extremists.

Yesterday one of our local high schools emptied out and the kids marched up Main Street waving Mexican flags and blocking traffic. A few of the politically astute kids were waving U.S. flags. It made me smile, even though my wife and I were inconvenienced by the traffic jam. Some of the democrats posting here on DU need to remember that most of these kids will be voting soon, and that it's a simple fact of life that the future of California and the United States isn't white.

When you see the huge protests by recent immigrants and their families in cities like Chicago and Los Angeles you are looking at our future. If it makes you uncomfortable, well too bad, there's nothing you can do about it. The immigrants are already here. The problems we all face can't be solved by one nation acting alone, they will have to be solved here and across the borders.

The first thing we must remember is that we are all people, no matter where we come from, or where we live.

[Boojatta]

45. Is this a thread about immigration or about how to discuss immigration?

I'm not entirely clueless in Spanish, but I'm not fluent. If it ever bothered me that people around me were speaking Spanish I would get off my butt and learn more of the language. Meanwhile I take it in slowly by osmosis.

(...)

the future of California and the United States isn't white.

#1 Are there any poor people in Japan?

#2 Are there any couples in Japan who have decided to not have children because of the cost, in Japan, of homes big enough to accommodate more than two people?

#3 Right now, do you have an opportunity to slowly take in the Japanese language by osmosis?

[hunter]

46. Japan is not a nation of recent immigrants.

The United States is. Our borders have always been permeable and most of the people living here came from someplace else.

I'm not sure what your concern is. Being a fan of science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, I'm thinking of some alternative history where a successful Imperial Japan controls the west coast of America... If I wanted to do better business with Japanese businessmen I might want to learn Japanese by something more than osmosis.

Yes I did originally post this as a thread about "how to discuss immigration." It seems to me that people are forgetting that "illegal aliens" are every bit as human as they are.

Personally, I have more neighbors whose families have immigrated from Mexico, then let's say, from Wisconsin. Simply by reason of my community I have more in common with the people here than I do with the people of Wisconsin.

If you are saying a person in Wisconsin who sees great crowds of hispanic people taking to the streets of Los Angeles might feel as xenophobic as a Japanese person might upon seeing crowds of Korean workers, well yes, but still, what's your point?

If your point is that I should get off my but and learn Spanish, well then, consider myself scolded.

[Boojatta]

50. Is Mexico a nation of recent immigrants?

I didn't intend to scold. Please pardon my abruptness. I intended to raise some questions.

In today's world of passenger jets, is the physical distance between two countries of overwhelming importance for immigration policy?

A bit of info from the CIA World Factbook:

Mexico:

Population 106.2 million
Total fertility rate: 2.45 children born/woman
Land area: 1.9 million sq km

Japan:

Population: 127.4 million
Total fertility rate: 1.39 children born/woman
Land area: 370,000 sq km

[MrTriumph]

53. If 10% of Americans left, wouldn't the US be labeled a failed state?

The problem is really south of the border. Backward economic systems drive populations to leave.

[hunter]

63. Backward economic systems exploit workers in the United States.

Everyone has to get over this idea that the United States is the greatest nation on earth. It's not.

It was my good fortune to be born here, and I love it, but in so many ways the United States is full of shit. True, it is less full of shit than many other places, but it is still full of shit.

The thing I hate most about the Bush Administration is that they have killed any vision of a better future.

The Republicans control the Federal Government. Where are all these conservative family value economic miracles the Republicans promised? Oh yeah, they were too busy sticking the silverware into their pants.

Don't give me any bullshit about 9/11. More carnage is done in car accidents and we don't blame cars for attacking our way of life, even though we probably should.

And don't go feeling all smug and superior to Mexico too soon now... They've got major, major, problems, but in some ways the United States is in worse shape. Our retreat from empire is likely to be very poorly handled, and we will not react well to the environmental disasters that await us all, particularly if sea levels begin to rise as quickly as it has been recently predicted. The most powerful Navy in the world will be out of luck when their ports are reclaimed by the sea.

[MrTriumph]

67. The point is Americans are not fleeing to Mexico

x

[BrklynLiberal]

60. Nice dose of reality, thank you.

[kpete]

48. This is true of SO MANY Issues

We need to look and listen and learn...

[kpete]

49. Lou Dobbs on CNN Just Said:

"Those people, who happen to be Catholics"

I am sorry -
but NO ONE -
NOT LOU DOBBS,
Not A Republican,
Democrat,
or Any American can use those kinds of words
and NOT get me MAD!!!!

(I will Still try to have a dialogue with them though, GRRRRRRR!!!)

[Boojatta]

51. He forgot to say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that" e.o.m.

[SeattleGirl]

54. Well said, Skinner.

I don't mind if someone disagrees with me, if they do it in a way that is respectful of me and my point of view. And, if they back it up with a logical discourse of why they disagree. Who knows? Maybe they have some information I don't have, that I can now consider in light of my point of view.

But drive-by snarks and insults, of which I, as have many other DUers, have been the recipient of, have no place here. The really interesting thing, though, is that when I address their comment, when I ask them to please explain why they think the way they do, why they think I am wrong, they don't respond. Or rather, very rarely do. It's so very unconstructive, and as you said, just ruins a discussion for the rest of us.

[MichiganVote]

56. Seems we need some borders afterall...if only for civility

[pat_k]

58. A different approach -- Perhaps a solution that more Dems could endorse

Controlling our borders with the stroke of a pen

Building a wall takes time. We don't need to wait. We can effectively control immigration with the stroke of a pen by passing legislation that includes two basic elements:

• Going after predatory employers.


• Offering a path to citizenship for whistleblowers and their families.

Specifically:

• Expand the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to cover every business and individual employer, whether they employ documented or undocumented workers.
  This means that conditions and terms of employment must meet FLSA and safety requirements for any wage earner who meets the criteria that would require reporting under IRS rules (e.g, the IRS threshold this year is $1500 for most of work).


• Criminalize predatory employment practices.
  Predatory employers who are violating FLSA, violating OSHA standards, and evading taxes must be subject to prosecution and mandatory prison time.


• Whistleblower immigration amnesty.
  This requires clear processes for workers to report predatory employers and maintain anonymity throughout the course of investigation. Whistleblowers who are undocumented (whether an individual or a group) are offered a path to citizenship.


• Increase resources and create special units as required
  Affected agencies would include the Dept of Labor Wage and Hour Division, Dept of Justice, OSHA, IRS, and INS. The Wage and Hour Division is probably the logical agency to oversee the handling of charges against predatory employers, including preliminary investigation, referral to Justice for investigation and prosecution, referral to IRS, and coordination with INS to process undocumented whistleblowers and other undocumented workers.

Controlling our borders isn't really about control; it's about values

"Controlling our borders" means more than erecting barriers or patrolling. Controlling our borders is about making a commitment to act in a manner that is consistent with our values.

When we set employment standards we are expressing our values. Those standards reflect our belief that all human beings have a right to be treated fairly.

As long as we allow ANY workers to be exploited within our borders, we disgrace ourselves. As long as we turn a blind eye to the violations committed by people who enter illegally or remain after their visa expires, we demonstrate hypocrisy.

Guest worker programs have a place, but too often; such programs have been used to give employers a ticket to pay substandard wages and subject workers to unsafe conditions. We cannot tolerate programs that set different standards for "guests."

To be consistent with American values, we need to "just say no" to the exploitation workers -- documented or not. Continuing to permit predatory employers to operate within our borders will only drive more and more of Us and "Them" into poverty.

Making implicit costs explicit

The harmful effects of supporting an underground economy are costly to the nation. When we "just say no" to the exploitation workers, some implicit costs will be made explicit. Americans have a choice. We can invest our tax dollars to our common benefit, or bear the costs -- both moral and monetary -- of exploiting other human beings.

If we choose make predatory employers the prime target, we can ensure the survival of vital "underground economy" sectors by providing transitional supports. We can also offset increased costs of goods or services to the working class through tax credits. (Should be part of shifting the costs of citizenship from those who benefit the least from our common infrastructure to those who benefit the most.)

Radically changing the rules of the game

If predatory employers faced serious penalties, and the undocumented workers they are exploiting benefited from blowing the whistle, we would significantly increase the risk of exploiting workers.

The threat of exposure and prosecution alone will be sufficient for many to revamp their operations. In some sectors, the predators may simply move operations offshore. In others, predators may be forced out of business. As noted above, it may serve the public interest to provide transition assistance or start up assistance for replacement businesses.

Undoubtedly, a significant percent of undocumented workers would continue to evade detection, but employers would be far less likely to exploit them. If the workers are making a fair wage, the "race to the bottom" has a limit and the negative effect on wages is reduced.

We have a right enforce immigration law and deport violators

There are situations in which our interests are best served by providing an alternative to deportation. Nevertheless, if it does not serve a public interest to provide an alternative, we should not hesitate to deport those who violate immigration laws.

We have a right to enforce our immigration laws. When we shift our focus to predatory employers, we are not forfeiting that right.

Offering legal status to whistleblowers serves us in two vital ways -- it deters predatory employers and it gives authorities vital resources "on the ground" that can expose those who are not deterred.

Targeting predatory employers doesn't eliminate the need to offer legal status to undocumented families that qualify (criteria to be defined). This approach creates a new class of unemployable undocumented workers. If we do not institute a program that offers an opportunity to achieve legal (employable) status, the deportation and support costs for those who are displaced are likely to rise to intolerable levels.

The number of people who are offered legal status could be limited if families that met certain criteria were entered into a "lottery" of sorts. It may seem harsh to allow chance to determine who stays and who goes, but depuration must remain the default consequence of breaking our immigration laws.

Conclusion

Our underground economy makes the United States very attractive to people who are struggling to survive in their own countries. We can change the dynamics right now and virtually eliminate the underground economy, and in the process, minimize the incentive to enter this country unlawfully.

Saying no to the exploitation of workers is central to controlling our borders. Radically changing the rules of the game makes other aspects of controlling immigration more manageable, but it does not eliminate the need for them. We still need to do a better job of tracking the foreign nationals who come here to work, study, or visit. We still need to do a better job of controlling our border with Mexico. We cannot continue to hypocritically turn a blind eye to violations of our immigration laws.

[BrklynLiberal]

61. Lots of good ideas!!!!

If we could only get some of them made into law.

[pat_k]

62. As soon as we've impeached Bush, we can turn our attention to it!

Impeachment First
Our House is Burning. Stop Remodeling and Put Out the Fire!
http://january6th.org/impeachment_first.html

[AuntiBush]

64. Good Going, Skinner!

The Democrat party is a huge tent. We DO NOT walk in lock-step like the neo-con Repubs. I repeat, we DO NOT walk in lockstep and are just as diverse in beliefs as people.

Good post!

[Hidden Stillness]

66. Discussion Tends to Be on Two Different Levels

This is one of the main problems with this issue, the fact that there are actually two issues, and they don't even match up at all. I was thinking a while ago, (answering a thread here at DU), that there is a way of having an opinion on both sides of the issue, and doing it as both a stereotypical liberal and conservative, so you don't know which it might be unless you question further:

Pro-Immigration; liberal: We were all immigrants; everyone deserves a chance here, etc.
Pro-Immigration, conservative: Cheap, underpaid labor, no unions, they'll never complain and if they do, I'll deport them. I hold all the cards.
Anti-immigration, liberal: This is the ultimate victory of the global corporate capitalist, destroying all boundaries and national sovereignty, inventing a total worker/slave marketplace for themselves, where all the world will fight each other for fewer and fewer jobs, lower and lower standards, while they themselves are never put on the global market. This will kill the most developed societies, and have only corporate rule. This is how they will destroy workers' rights and the middle class; they will not even have to bust the last few unions--they will just import slave labor.
Anti-immigration, conswervative: This is a white country; there are already too many of these other people here already.
Simple, but you get the idea. You don't know which attitude it actually is until you learn further.

There was a recent panel on this issue, played on C-SPAN, put on by the Mexican-American Chamber of Commerce, I think it was, with Lou Dobbs and others. After Dobbs talked about the devastating economic effects to American workers, and how abusive employers exploit underpaid labor and will not even hire Americans with benefits and workplace rules, there was a reply about how great Mexican immigrants have been for the country, this thing on "what would America be like for one day if all undocumented workers did not show up for work," etc. showing how necessary they are, etc., and I thought, well, this is all true, and worth telling, but it had nothing to do with the other point. They were talking on two different levels.

Something needs to be said about the endless capitalist exploitation of all the workers they can get away with abusing, and how little progress there has been for most people, and how the "work visa/guest worker" abuse will continue to make it worse. I was just thinking a while ago about how, when I was a kid, my Mom, going shopping, would sometimes announce, "We aren't getting grapes this week," or "I'm not going to buy lettuce this time," because Caesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers had announced a boycott. This was so normal in our household, we always respected the boycott announcements and did not buy. All these years and years later, and I think conditions for the migrant and etc. farm workers are as horrible as they ever were. Nothing ever actually improves for anybody--no equal pay for women, reduced benefits for all, no pensions anymore, and this. Nothing will improve until these bastard employers suffer some consequences.

[TahitiNut]

70. Very good summation - and I agree.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/110

[Strawman]

68. How about just not taking the immigration bait?

Illegal Immigration is a "problem" that will never be solved. When it comes to stopping illegal immigration in this country, the proposed cures always sound a whole lot more f'ed up than the actual symptom to me.

So people can go ahead and build an 80 story wall around the whole goddamn country without addressing any of the underlying causes if that's what they want. What's a few hundred billion for an uglyass fence? We're flush with extra cash. It's not like people are starving or going without in this country, right? And once we kick those illegals out we'll just be rolling in dough. While we're at it, let's make every person caught speaking Spanish take a loyalty oath after whistling "God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood out of their assholes. Knock yourselves out people. Pass yet another immigration law. Those really seem to work well. While you're at it you might as well take a nice long piss into a 90mph headwind. Then in ten years or so, we'll do this all over again.

See how tempting it is? I just took the bait. God, I'm stupid.

Bush wins by changing the news here. NYT publishes a story this week about a Blair memo saying Bush was ready to stop at nothing to provide a bogus pretext for a war. Nothing to see here folks. The corruption of this administration stinks to high heaven (which is even higher than Sensenbrenner's wall...barely). Oh, well. If it wasn't for those goddamn Mexicans everything would be just rosy in the Good Ol' USA. Or was it those Arabs who "hate us for our freedoms?" Anyone seen any "Welfare Queens" lately? It doesn't matter that Bush's freeper base is pissed at him about his stance on immigration. That's a scripted part of the spectacle. He's getting exactly what he wants from all this ruckus: a nice little diversionary political pinata party for everyone.

Let's do better than just agree to disagree. Let's just not get into it in the first place.

I'm reminded by my own suggestion of something George Bush's second favorite philosopher, Wayne Campbell, once said "Yeah, and maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt."

[fearnobush]

69. Reagan used the word "Amnesty." We should too.

Why is Bush so anti Reagan - in the 1980's Ronald Reagan's 1987 illegal immigrant 1987 policy.

"1987-88 one-time amnesty signed by President Reagan in 1986. The 1986 law, the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986, granted an unprecedented amnesty to aliens who had resided in the United States since before 1982."

<http://legalizationusa.org/new/News_Item.2004-05-24.2748894446>

[Zomby Woof]

71. There are more facets to this issue...

...than found on an 18k diamond.

I would be alarmed if we all agreed, considering the complexity of immigration issues. When you ponder the cultural, political, and economic realities behind immigration, you have one heady brew for conflicting opinions, which can transcend easy ideological niceties.

That's a good rule of thumb for many a hotly debated issue here.

[enigmatic]

72. Exactly

This is not an "I'm right, you're wrong" cut and dried issue, no matter how much those on all sides of this debate want it ,and in their eyes, need it to be.

Once we can get past that, then we'll be able to have a discussion about this.

[nolabels]

84. When is the debate about the KNOWN facts going on?

The rich bastards, corporations and this surrogate that they have that the rest of us call the U.S. government has purposely done all this. They have got us where they want us, fighting among each other. Shipping as many jobs as they can overseas and bringing in as many as they could under the radar was no accident. As with a whole lot of other issues my beef is with CORPORATE AMERICA and has nothing to do with the rest of us working stiffs

[jbcghia1]

73. Terrorism

What bothers me about the Democratic response is the adoption of Republican arguments to justify a stance. Strengthen of the borders as Hillary suggests is

Clinton said it would be "an unworkable scheme to try to deport 11 million people, which you have to have a police state to try to do."

She called instead for immigration changes "based on strengthening our borders in order to make us safer from the threat of terrorism."

She starts off great, but how are we going to make our borders impervious to terror without creating a police state along our borders and coast lines. So I call bs

Prevention of terror is a crap argument. Building walls is an impossible solution,
Why not legalize?
We would justify the lives of 11 million people who are for the most part hard working and the very same type of people who came to this country for a better life.
we should all have basic health care its why I want to be in this country it is part of the whole right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness thing... so Lets stop making war and we can start solving the real root causes of our problems

[EFerrari]

77. Welcome to DU, jbcghia1

:hi:

[Pushed To The Left]

74. The crazy thing is, I think most of us agree and don't realize it!

It needs to become a less divisive issue and a more practical one. I like what I am seeing recently from progressive groups and commenators. They are opposed to illegal immigration and want to punish the employers---cheap labor conservatives---who hire illegal immigrants and exploit them. While the conservative anti-illegal-immigration people put the blame on the undocumented immigrants themselves, we on the left put the blame on corporatism and greed. I think that if Congress attempted to pass a law to go after the cheap labor conservative employers who exploit the immigrants, it would be overwhelmingly supported by most of us on DU, as well as a good number of conservatives.

[El Fuego]

80. It is such a confusing issue

I used to think my opposition to illegal immigration was a tad freeperish, but the republicans support it for cheap (slave) labor! :crazy:

[fishnfla]

82. hip-hip

hooray

[riona]

83. whatever is decided

i hope it involves decent wages, healthcare, and a realistic number of immigrants that can be absorbed at a given time without causing chaos to our economy.

[mmonk]

85. Sure they can.

The politicians are counting on it.

[Blue_Roses]

86. I have been coming to this website for almost four years and I have to say

this is one of the main reasons I love this site. I am constantly amazed at how level-headed you are in the most high-strung situations and the fairness that you show us here. I personally would like to say thanks:) We need people like you running for office. Seriously.

You are absolutely right about the variance of views on immigration and in the last week I have heard them all (I think) and as someone who lived in a state with illegal immigrants crossing the hot border, my heart goes out to them and their desire to feed their family. I don't know exactly where I fall--probably somewhere in the middle--wherever that is. I guess I just want those who really want to better themselves to have a fighting chance, however, why can't Vincente Fox do something to help his own country...

so there are so many open-ended questions I have right now and I think that clarity comes from looking at both sides with fairness.

[pitohui]

87. it is difficult

you never meet a person in real life who is pro illegal immigration who isn't a racist and who isn't just looking for an excuse not to hire blacks

so it's hard, skinner, it's really hard

but i will try harder