I don't like what I'm hearing.

[CANDO]

This illegal immigrant thing will blow up in our faces as an election year issue. The right wing wall builders will push this to the hilt while ignoring employer enforcement. It's a perfect diversion of the publics attention away from their corruption and rubber stamping. And what do I hear from most of the Democratic voices in the media? That we need to in some way work for these people to obtain amnesty or guest worker status. It boggles my mind that the sheeple on the right will completely ignore the corporate shills their power people are and not put two and two together and figure out that their conservative economic philosophy just loves flooding the labor market. They will successfully paint us into a corner in the media as the ones who want these illegals legalized. This feels really bad. I don't like it one bit that our DLC corporate types have put us in this position. We need to strongly go after the employers and that should be the very first priority.

[ClassWarrior]

1. But this issue is ALL ABOUT their corruption. Which makes it the...

...perfect wedge for us.

I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Welcome to DU! :hi:

NGU.

[Erika]

6. The GOP are eating their own on issue

Look at Tancredo and his followers. They are totally against their president on this issue.

Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage are besides themselves about W's betrayal to their cause.

[CANDO]

19. Not a very good wedge.

When our Democratic mouthpieces are in the media calling for the same thing as *, how is it a good wedge? I simply am saying that regardless of party, out here on main street people understand that we need to get tough on the hiring of these people. My brother is to the right of most Republicons, but even he admits to the effect of cheap labor undermining our middle class. I am elated that even the sheeple can see this. But instead of our people standing up for our labor, we pander to the compassion side of it. I am all for compassion, but mine starts with our own middle class. How long have we pointed out the pukes voting against their own economic interests? And now here we are siding with those same corporate shills on amnesty and guest worker language. I guarantee you Mr. Rove is working on turning this in their favor. The only way we seize this issue is if we stand up for the American middle class. I'm not talking about building walls or rounding up millions of people. A few executives behind bars will work wonders on the psyche of both the employers and the illegals. And thank you for the welcome, but actually I've been around DU for around five or six years now. I just don't post a few hundred "kicks" to make it look like I'm some sort of veteran of the boards.

[sallyseven]

2. Their issue will be it is not secure to let them in the

country. They could bring a dirty bomb. it will be about security. I saw this moron on Tweety the other night and he said is was all about security and the Dirty bombs they could bring in. That will be the mantra.

[Neil Lisst]

3. The Dem answer: Why don't we build a wall around WalMart?

Point being - attack the problem at the source - the ILLEGAL EMPLOYERS, who are Americans, and are easy to find, and easy to punish.

[Cleita]

9. These employers are supposed to be fined $1,000 for a

first violation up to $10,000 for additional violations. The law is on the books. So why aren't the INS pursuing the employers?

[Neil Lisst]

18. and the answer is "because they're Bush's contributor's"

I do not blame illegal immigrants for being here, but I do blame exploitive companies who use them to keep wages and benefits down.

[bowens43]

4. Good!! I DO want them legalized. Absolutely.

That is the morally correct thing to do. If our party was to endorse any legislation that did not include at the very least guest worker status , I would find it nearly impossible to support the Democratic party in November.

[Lexingtonian]

5. Oh, stop being paranoid

and stop imagining that doing something is somehow critically important. If you read actually polling, it isn't. You're falling for the right wing hype.

[Warpy]

7. If we allow them to frame it in terms of immigration, itself, you bet

because neither party is particularly serious about stopping illegal immigration as long as corporate bottom lines are improved and their portfolios get fatter.

Framing it in terms of exploitation and low wage conservatism will allow us to seize the issue and make it our own. Putting the focus where it belongs--on bosses who want a free ride on underpaid labor--will turn the tables on Rove and all his machinations.

Whether or not the party is ready to break free of DLC corporatism and do this will determine the outcome in both 2006 and 2008.

[PATRICK]

8. Yes, what is wrong with simple math?

Put 2000 feudal lords in the slammer or chase millions of illegals? Build legal immigration offices or the Great Halliburton Wall of Mexico? In the drug war there are millions of customers and a lot fewer sellers and the math defeats us. In this situation it is quite the reverse. the relatively few plantation barons are stationary, loaded with illegal employees. The whole equation would change drastically by arresting and bankrupting just a few of these slum labor lords.

Then you would have an entirely different control situation we could "Canada-ize".

And for those simple people who get caught up in neglecting the math here's another simple number effect. No matter what happens in this debate you WILL be paying more for fruits and vegetables. SO do you want all that profit to go back into the pockets of the slum labor labors creating the national problem or to the honest workers and their communities? Or into those bad fences that make bad neighbors?

I suppose, sneakily, subconsciously, Americans might really be afraid that better treatment of this situation, fairer wages for farm workers will up the price of their grocery bill. And they don't want to deal with that or to looking for the middle men and profiteers and gas barons up and down the line with their hands in your mouths.

EVERY time this issue comes up, CBS should(if their media slum lords magnanimously allow) replay "Harvest of Shame" ("Grapes of Wrath" wouldn't hurt either) over and over again. At least in private showings for the DLC Caucus. The GOP would love to laugh and eat popcorn in their private showing. Our Dem semi-leaders would do what they always do. Grow silent while the starving grow our food.

[Cleita]

12. You said:

"No matter what happens in this debate you WILL be paying more for fruits and vegetables."

When Cesar Chavez formed the UFW, wages were raised to almost twice minimum wage. Field workers got sanitary facilities, water and Worker's Comp. There were also clinics set up to take care of the other medical needs of the workers and their families.

People screamed that the price of produce was going to go up, but it didn't. So here you have a historical fact that prices didn't go.

In my agricultural area, field workers get an average of $10 an hour because they are unionized. You are probably eating food harvested from here and California wine made here. Are you paying an excessive price for your produce and wine?

[jbnow]

21. Chavez made a great difference

but that fight was won for the legal immigrants. Do they pay illegal immigrants the same wages and benefits? I have been told they do not because they know these workers won't complain.

I really want those workers we need to be able to work legally. I hate idea of people risking health and life to sneak in and then get screwed over by the employer too.

[Minnesota Libra]

10. The 08 election is the liberals to loose and if they aren't careful....

....they will do exactly that - loose later this year and again in 08. What could do it?? The neocons playing tough on illegal aliens while the liberals choosing the opposite choice. Neither party is getting the job done but the point here is whoever plays hard ball with illegal aliens will win the battle.

If the democrats or republicans would shut down both borders, slap truly crippling fines on anyone hiring or housing illegal aliens (corporations or mom-and-pop operations), start confiscating property, start deporting some illegal aliens, that party could then claim to actually be doing something about the issue of illegal aliens. That is the party who would win and truly win big too.

Is the illegal alien issue a convenient neocon diversion from Bush's illegal war - darn right it is. The point is though neocons are raising any and all issues possible trying to find one that liberals need to be strong on. Neocons are hoping to find that magic issue that liberals will in fact wimp out on and they may have just found it too.

I hate to say it but if liberals aren't careful this could come back to bite us where the sun don't shine.:cry:

[ClassWarrior]

13. What's "the opposite choice?"

You said, "The neocons playing tough on illegal aliens while the liberals choosing the opposite choice..."

What's "the opposite choice?"

To me it's getting tough on irresponsible corporations while watching out for people. What is it to you?

NGU.

[Minnesota Libra]

15. To me getting tough is much more than going after corporations.......

......You wrote: "To me it's getting tough on irresponsible corporations while watching out for people."

To me going after the corporations is a good idea in and of itself but is not nearly enough. Your suggestions mention nothing about doing anything to the smaller companies or mom-and-pop operations who also hire a lot of illegal aliens. Your suggestions do absolutely nothing to corporations or anyone who rents to or sell houses to illegal aliens. Nor do your suggestions mention anything about any deportations of some of the illegal aliens already here. Basically your suggestion appears to be amnesty for illegal aliens by saying "while watching out for people".

This is the part that neocons are going to jump on - the amnesty part. Never mind that your other suggestions might be good it's the amnesty that they will hound on.

[BillZBubb]

11. Sure, this issue could blow up on us, which the Repugs hope.

But right now, it's more a problem for them. They have two opposing "solutions". That affords us the luxury (short term) of sitting on the sidelines watching them kick each other in the groin. It's actually one of the few times when the Democratic leadership's inaction isn't a bad thing. We don't have to let them slice us with their "wedge". Let them slice and dice themselves first.

We should let the dust settle, let the Repugs put out some legislation, then attack it as ridiculously flawed--which there is no doubt it will be. Then we can offer a sensible Democratic alternative that actually attempts find a satisfactory solution.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Unfortunately, it's a nuanced position (IOW, too complex for the

sheeple). Amnesty or other such reform would make the illegals unable to be exploited. That would mainstream them, and make their jobs competitive for legal residents. If the playing field is leveled, who will the employers hire -- an immigrant who barely speaks the language and has minimal education, or an American who barely speaks the language and has minimal education (oops, slipped off topic there). Cracking down on employers is certainly key to it, but the economic incentive for employers breaking the law must also be removed because, face it, we are not going to get the investigators to police every construction company, lawn-care company, and small-town assembly line in the country.

There's a reason that Halliburton got the contract for building those so-called 'emergency camps'. I don't really think that it's for anti-war protesters. This government would spend millions on prison camps and police, but leave INS underfunded when it comes to investigating employers -- because the employers ARE the republican party.

[sandnsea]

16. And YOU'LL help!!!

And every other so-called Democrat who chooses to call it amnesty and ignores the stringent requirements for legalization AND the number of Democrats who have called for increased penalties on businesses who hire illegals.

THEY ARE saying Democrats support amnesty, that's politics. What is baffling is why Democrats who KNOW the way Republicans play continue to be buffaloed by their strategies.

[thethinker]

17. As far as amnesty goes

We offered amnesty when Reagan was president. Before Reagan 30,000 illegals came into the country a year. Now 1 million come across the border a year.

The only solution is to go after the employers. The problem is they subcontract the work to one individual who hires the illegals. The corporations know they are illegals but they aren't dumb enough to directly hire them. The corporations just benefit from it by paying lower wages.

Does anyone think conditions in South America are rougher now than they were before Reagan. I doubt it.

When these people come across the border it is usually the husband that comes north. He leaves a wife and kids in South America. Sometimes it is the mother that comes and leaves kids in South America. They send as much money as they can home. This policy we have of wide open borders is wrecking families.

[DanCa]

20. If it weren't immigration, it would be about gay marriage or abortion.

This is what repukes do. They divert attention and rally up their base.

[Neil Lisst]

22. When they say WALL, we say NO, WALMART!!

Americans know the problem is the big employers, and they also know that those big employers are keeping workers down with either illegal workers, or the threat of using them.