DU we have a problem

[LaurenG]

The war between factions here grows more intense daily. We have those who would like to set limits and those who cry foul or racism on those limits.

The problem with this dissension is that neither side is entirely right. The answers lie somewhere in the middle.

We had a strong country once with a solid bank account to back us before the 2000 elections. We had our share of problems before that but Clinton did his best to be fiscally responsible and we were all the better for it. We are now facing a future of enormous uncertainty and all we can do is hold on and try to shift our weight as the boat we are riding in attempts to capsize.

We the people are much more responsible citizens on a bad day than our current government will ever be. It is in this vein that I would hope that we can come together to improve our circumstances and those of any who come here seeking a better life. There is enough, we have enough to share but we will have to restructure a few things such as the tax burden, corporate person hood and the ridiculous leadership in the White House.

We have our work cut out for us and we must not lose sight of our goals by being hijacked by our emotions or egos. We have all been invalidated for six long years. We are bombarded daily with idiocy and lack of common sense. We have sent our loved ones to a war that is illegal, immoral, incomprehensible and hideously managed. We have lost many of our rights and freedom is running for it's life all over the globe because of a group of madmen and women. Madmen and woman who have forgotten who they are, who have given their childish ego every pleasure it desired and when it still wasn't enough went searching for more. It is a disease of the spirit a disease of the ego and it is madness.

We cannot continue in the madness. We cannot follow in the footsteps of those who claim power or allow our fears to hurt another human soul. American citizens make this a fair country and a forgiving country. It is in the spirit of fairness and in brotherly love that we will have to take our country back and offer safe passage for newcomers. We must not allow hate to grow in our hearts or pollute our minds. We have so much to offer and we can come up with a solution if we learn to compromise and keep an open mind.

Someone out there has a solution that we can compromise on, so I hope that we settle the immigration issue between us quickly as we still have much to do in so many other areas, we must not tie ourselves up over one issue for too long as it will be us that we hurt the most in the long run.


Peace and god speed to us all.

[redwitch]

1. I hereby kick and recommend for the greatest page.

We can't let this destroy our unity on other matters. Divided we are useless. Thanks for an excellent post.

[rumpel]

2. k&r

[skids]

3. Agreed. Take the rage to other boards...

There are plenty of other websites with tons of people that need a slap upside the head a lot more than your fellow DUers.

[Pushed To The Left]

4. Common ground: Going after the employers!

I think this is something everybody here seems to agree on. It goes after the people in power who are exploiting the immigration situation. I think increased border and port security would be a common sense solution as well. I think most people actually tend to agree on this issue more than they think. It's just the way that it's presented sometimes that causes people to misunderstand eachother and become angry.

[Zookeeper]

48. You are absolutely right, PTTL.

Everyone claims to agree on the culpability of employers, yet the few threads that attempt to rationally address that issue, sink like anchors (Cleita posted one this weekend that was largely ignored).

However, the flame-bait threads that pit Union/American worker advocates against Hispanic illegal migrant advocates quickly shoot up to 2 and 3 hundred posts.

[Pushed To The Left]

49. The flame threads are what the right wing wants

They want people to fight eachother on the "wedge" parts of the issue. We can beat the right and beat illegal immigration simultaneously by going after the employers and making them the number one target.

[bush_is_wacko]

75. The only solution to the problem! Problem is , some employers

will then move their businesses out of the country. We need laws that severely INCREASE business taxes for employers that hire outside the country AND severely FINE those employers that fail to hire LEGAL workers. In order to to hire LEGAL workers here in the US employers will have to increase pay. The only reason they are employing illegal workers in the first place is because they will work for less than half the pay of a legal worker. WE all know this. It really is and always has been a no brainer!

NAFTA and CAFTA did not work to our advantage here in the US it's time our government own up to it and fix it.

[radwriter0555]

5. kkkarl rove told you that 'immigration is a problem'. Most of you believe

him and the BS about it flying around.

kkkarl rove said he would use immigration as a wedge to divide and disrupt the USA.

And he is doing just this.

He's doing this to distract from his own pending indictment, the illegal war, etc, and to stir civil unrest.

he's performing a sleight of hand. You might want to pay attention to what he and his criminals are actually DOING right now, cause something is up.

You're being punked.

And the only solution you need to the supposed immigration problem is to form the US, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union, modeled after the current EU in a strong manner.

But you see, that IS a solution that would work. So, it ain't gonna happen.

[EFerrari]

11. We are being TOTALLY punked. n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

14. I didn't think this thread was suppose to be all about YOUR opinion.

[nolabels]

77. Yea, so how about the idea of holding the government responsible also

Government and employers blame workers for the governments and employers failures, so what should we put forth as new? This tactic of using immigration as a wedge issue is over a century and half old in just this country

[PetraPooh]

25. I like your idea too. Mine is suitable, but yours is better.

[roody]

47. A livable wage will lift all our boats. $12 hr. minimum.

[LuckyLib]

6. And to everyone you meet who rails on immigrants, ask them

"Why do you think this has so suddenly risen as front-page news? Whose interests are served by creating all of this lather over immigration at this point in Bushie's administration? Why do the Republicans want you to be looking elsewhere, rather than at corporate greed, a real decline in wages, lack of affordable housing for many working poor, health care costs rising at astronomical rates, the quagmire in Iraq? Why wasn't the Republican congress all lathered up about immigration reform 5 years ago? Hmmmmmm. This stinks.

[iangb]

7. It's a non issue issue.......

We've been through this in Australia when the Howard government raised 'illegal immigration' as an issue (and won an election using the 'protecting our borders' slogan).

The cost was the splitting of society....and $AU3.5bil pa. on the 'Pacific Solution' which saw 'illegals' being shipped off to Pacific Islands for 'detention'.

All this for a 'problem' consisting of no more than 10,000 Afghans/Iraqis/Pakistanis trying to gain entry.

Unless/until you realise that this is nothing more than a 'wedge' designed to divert attention from your real problems you'll be drowned out by the hysteria.

[leftstreet]

8. I. Will. Not. Compromise.

The Democrats have been handed an opportunity to GENUINELY reach across the aisle and join in unity with those Republican voters who are RAGING against the corporate machine that seeks to make ALL workers of ALL nations a slave labor class.

It's about uniting LABOR against THE BOSS MAN.

It's NOT about waving and burning nation-state flags (made in China) to deflect and redirect the righteous rage of Labor.

If the Democrats fuck this up, they'll send droves of voters over to the Republicans, looking for that elusive true fiscal conservative.

[bowens43]

12. Reach across the isle and attack the poor under the guise of

'RAGING against the corporate machine'

No thanks.

[PetraPooh]

17. Why do the poor have to be attacked, the solution is so simple.

Attack the business owners who hire them. If the jobs aren't here under the table, then the ILLEGAL immigrants won't have a reason to be here. In no way do I support harming the mexican or canadian or south american immigrants. HOWEVER there are ways to stop the flow by controlling and criminalizing companies that utilize the labors of illegals to gain profit and ensure a slave labor force that requires no workmens' compensation program, no matching employer payroll taxes, no insurance, no pension, and low wages to boot; while the executives in these same companies are taking home record paychecks and wage packages.

I agree that the folks most hurt by potentially allowing more "workers programs" are poor black men and women who need these jobs. They say no one else besides illegals shows up for the jobs when some are advertised, but I would guess that's because they aren't being advertised in places where poor, black men and women would see them; AND/OR because they (the companies) are intending to acquire slave quality labor, the wages are set ridiculously low for the work and dangers required.

I do not support criminalizing those that assist illegals in a charitable way, only those that are responsible for bringing them here in the first place. Mexico is a democratic country, if they don't like their lot in their country they need to elect different choices and stand up for their own economic situation. I don't expect my neighbors to pay my bills or solve my financial woes when I am short funds, I also don't expect the reverse.

Those that are here should be deported withOUT any criminal need; ie they should not be branded criminals, but they should be deported.

[EFerrari]

23. Sure. And then we can eat the three million children left behind.

The three million American citizens whose lives would be ruined.

What's a good side dish with American citizen?

[PetraPooh]

24. Yeah, right, you think they would leave their children behind, then

they are the type of folk I want living in my country. And we are US citizens, so I am sure the 3 million rich US citizens who imagine their lives will be ruined because they have to pay fair wages to US citizens for a fair job will survive. Boy that is one of the most irrational posts I've read so far on this issue.

I wonder if the fact that they abandon their children to come here in the first place, isn't one of the problems facing their countries. But alas if Mexico, Latin & South Americas can manage with the problem, we in the USA surely could find a reasonable solution that wouldn't require cooking.

[EFerrari]

31. The real problem facing their country is US policy, my friend.

And last time I looked, hungry people don't set policy or wages.

[PetraPooh]

36. Then they need to elect those that reject US policy, not come

to the US to solve their countries problems. They need to reject the war on drugs, american interference, etc. AND YES hungry people liberated the United States from England, Venezuelan's from the elite in their country; it is Mexico's turn. But if their poor all run away to the offending country, it makes it hard to take a stand, doesn't it?

[EFerrari]

61. It's happening all over Latin American. Mexico's election is in July.

I don't know what they vote on (systems) but if the election is clean, Fox is history.

[Richard Steele]

50. "Condoleeza Rice Pilaf" nm

[question everything]

46. When so many continue to shop at Wal-Mart, buying merchandise

made by slave labor in China and other places; when so many constantly seek the cheapest product or service - mostly because this is all they can afford - do you really think that many will give up cheap labor of illegal immigrants?

It is not only corporations. If you live in a border state you have seen groups of day laborers - some may be illegal immigrants - who will work in one's house or yard cheap.

I don't have the answer, I just point to some facts.

Of course, if we work on narrowing the gaps between CEOs and their average workers from 500 to, say, 50 as it is in the rest of the industrial world, and use the difference to expand and to hire more workers and to provide more workers with decent wages, then, perhaps, more will be willing to "buy American."

[PetraPooh]

51. I try hard to do my part. Never shop Walmart, try hard to buy US goods.

It is tough, but really do try to stick with local goods, then state goods, then US goods, and then if I seem to have no choice (ie I can't find a US made that is really made in the US), I buy what I can find. I try not to focus solely on price but on quality, meaning I tend to NOT buy chinese goods. If I can't afford quality right now, I delay the purchase till I can.

[Cobalt Violet]

15. Nor will I.

[RagingInMiami]

16. I will not compromise either

And neither will the millions of Hispanic voters in this country who are also against this immigration bill. If you want to unite labor against the boss man, then why go about it by persecuting the immigrant?

That passive-aggressive behavior.

[leftstreet]

40. "persecuting the immigrant" Pffft. You'd rather the corporations do it?

Do you seriously think any "guest worker" program that comes out of this mess will guarantee livable wages for 11-20 million undocumented workers?

Isn't it bad enough that the Catholic church and La Raza are working against the interests of undocumented workers by selling them on a program that won't give them livable wages?

It's still an issue of divide/conquer Labor.

[RagingInMiami]

41. No, I'd rather focus on building unions for all workers, including

illegal immigrants. I'd rather the people work together against the corporations for worker's rights. Without the people, they can't make money. It's as simple as that.

So Pffft yourself.

[leftstreet]

67. "without the people, they can't make money" Which people?

The people in America? Or, the people in the fastest growing Asian and Middle Eastern economies?

Yeah, right.
:eyes:
Americans are #1.

[oneold1-4u]

20. FTU before November

And we will never again have to worry about an election in the next 80-100 years!
It will take 30 years just to clean up this mess we are in, "IF" we remain a free nation!
This group in power (illegally) has not allowed ten days to go by without creating some form of stupid controversy to hide some form of their ugly masterful ways to take more money and power. Look past everything they turn loose on the people and begin watching them very closely. It is going to get a lot worse during this next six months.
Lets hold on and hold together to try to stop this the democratic way. When (IF)we no longer have a free nation then we will still have to hold together, or accept death for all separate factions!

[SeattleGirl]

9. Excellent post, OhioBlues

I get dismayed at the negativity that I see on this board over certain issues. I don't mean honest disagreements and differing opinions. I mean the personal attacks on people that I see here. Respect for other people doesn't have to go out the window just because we might disagree with each other. Thank you for your very thoughtful post on this.

Definitely recommended.

[treegiver]

10. Peace and god speed to us all.

That's a really great start. Perhaps you could have said "god speed to all white folk". It would have been no less divisive.

[LaurenG]

18. I wonder what you found divisive in that statement?

Peace and godspeed to us all is divisive? What part of all is exclusive?

[QC]

19. You said the g-word!!!!! n/t

[LaurenG]

22. god speed?

The small g is not meant to be used in a religious manner.

Godspeed

a successful journey; "they wished him Godspeed"



http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3mqutwulwp2di?method=4&dsid=502&deid=1206919244&curtab=502_1&sbid=lc02a&linktext=Meaning%20%231


edit: weird spelling and grammar

[PetraPooh]

30. Recommend using "goodspeed" as alternative.

[treegiver]

28. It's worse than I thought.

You don't see a problem there? Suppose the OP had said "May Allah smile upon us". Starting to get my drift?

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treegiver]

73. Racism has nothing to do with it.

The OP wished us "god speed". That sort of unconscious (what shall I call it?) "godism" is what I was objecting to. Not everyone buys into the superstitions of the majority.

Glad you've diagnosed the problem. What would you suggest we do about it? Kill the atheists? It's been tried before, somewhere, I forget where.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AngryOldDem]

76. Did you read the post?

Or just fixate on its close?

I think you just proved OhioBlue's point brilliantly.

And, no, I don't get your drift, because it seems to be a pretty petty observation when it's put in the context of what OB was saying.

[treegiver]

78. Of course I read the post.

Since you didn't "get my drift", let me be more explicit.

The OP put forth a call for unity and concluded with a phrase that's offensive to people who don't buy into the superstitions embraced by the majority. I tried to illustrate that by suggesting the substitution of the phrase "may Allah smile upon us", which reflects a viewpoint not embraced by the majority here.

I may be hard for you to see what I'm getting at because of the almost universal belief in such superstitions, but I'm tired of walking on eggshells lest I show "disrespect" for the foolish beliefs of the majority.

[AndyTiedye]

13. Open the Fucking Borders, But Make Them Pay a Living Wage

The real crime isn't that they're hiring illegals.
The crime is the pay and the working conditions.
Can we agree to go after them for that?

[Canuckistanian]

21. I'm for that

Keep things as they are, but fine any employer who doesn't pay a minimum rate.

And while you're policing the employers, you can find out who the illegals are.

Then make the employer sponsor the immigrant for a full or limited citizenship.

[PetraPooh]

29. and provide worker's comp, insurance, pension plan, PR taxes; ALL

of the things workers from wherever deserve.

[Canuckistanian]

43. Sounds like we have a plan. Now who we speak to?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Cleita]

32. Here's the problem.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Cleita/5

We need to change the laws to make the employers accountable for their hiring practices.

[Cleita]

33. Listening just now on AAR, to a native American women who

is running for office in South Dakota. I'm sorry I didn't catch the name or office, but what she said was interesting when asked about the immigration problem. She answered that immigration is a sore point for indigenous people. But, she said that the majority of the immigrants in question are indigenous people. (Had a to do here on DU with some who refuse to believe that.) But here it is being said by someone who ought to know.

She also said that a tribe on the Arizona border is offering the immigrants food and water so they don't die there like so many others have. She said this is something the vigilantes patrolling the border won't do.

To me this boils down to an issue of kindness to the poorest and most vulnerable people on our continent. We have to look at the humanitarian aspect first before we start blaming the victim and letting the guilty, the employers, off the hook. When we look at it from this POV, the solutions become clearer.

[countryjake]

35. There is no other humane view!

A lot of the illegals showing up here are Native-Mexicans who can't even speak Spanish and it's hard for even some of the Chicanos to communicate or help them. Totally isolated in the land of plenty.

[laheina]

79. Exactly.

I said as much in another thread. I'm glad others of us are aware of this.

[pat_k]

45. must target Predatory Employers, but open borders?? No.

Barbara Jordan wouldn't be with you on that. (and as Breeze54 points out, Caesar Chávez wouldn't be with you on that either)

To make sense about the national interest in immigration, it is necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law, and those who violate it. Therefore, we disagree, also, with those who label our efforts to control illegal immigration as somehow inherently anti-immigrant. Unlawful immigration is unacceptable.. . .

. . .deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.
--Barbara Jordan, Chair, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform February 24, 1995

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. More. . .

[AndyTiedye]

60. Open Borders Means That Crossing the Border is Not a Crime

It means that the people who cross the border to work here are legal.
They have no incentive to help their employers evade the labor laws.
They can unionize. They can file complaints with OSHA.

The presence of a large labor force that is subject to deportation has
been used to break the back of our labor movement.

No more walls.

[pat_k]

62. We must set the requirements for who can or cannot legally enter. . .

. . .and those who enter illegally have broken the law. They are committing a crime. It would be a hypocritical violation of our basic principles to ignore immigration laws and the qualifications we define.

I'm guessing you did not follow the "More. . ." link to Controlling Our Borders at the end of my post. I believe that proposal addresses your concerns -- i.e., our need to "Just Say No" to the exploitation of ANY workers with our borders.

As I suggest in that document, targeting predatory employers coupled with a whistleblower incentive program would be a big step forward toward eliminating our underground economy, but:

. . .
We have a right enforce immigration law and deport violators

To make sense about the national interest in immigration, it is necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law, and those who violate it. Therefore, we disagree, also, with those who label our efforts to control illegal immigration as somehow inherently anti-immigrant. Unlawful immigration is unacceptable. . .

. . .deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.

--Barbara Jordan, Chair, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform February 24, 1995

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. . .

I should have added this point: Any alternative must include consequences for breaking the law. A fine; mandatory hours of public service -- restitution of some kind.

[GuvWurld]

26. Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2005/09/blueprint-for-peaceful-revolution.html

Thursday, September 22, 2005

A Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

- United States Declaration of Independence

So be it: A Blueprint for Peaceful Revolution
By Dave Berman
9/22/05
This paper is archived at: http://tinyurl.com/au2pj

Executive Summary

We The People have been divided into a Cold Civil War*. This divide was intentionally created by a government that does not seek the Consent of the Governed. Unverifiable "“elections"” leave no basis for confidence in the results reported, and make this government'’s power illegitimate. This government benefits from being divisive, and from the inherent uncertainty it creates with Orwellian paradoxes. This paper describes consensus-building measures to heal the divide. It is recommended that communities across the U.S. support a Voter Confidence Resolution** (VCR), modeled after the template language already adopted in Arcata, CA. Part of this campaign involves contrasting proposed election reforms with current conditions to expose the myth of democracy. Other such myths are discussed in this paper and ideas for debunking them are presented as part of the process of consensus building and divide healing. Peaceful revolution is defined as a shift in the balance of power between the government and We The People. Therefore, going from having no say in elections, to having any say at all, is necessarily revolutionary. The essentials of the VCR lay out the parameters for defining success: we must ensure conclusive election outcomes, create a basis for confidence in the results reported, and establish an accountable government genuinely representing us with our Consent. No one single reform can achieve all this and so we must embrace both the notion of an election reform platform, and the broader paradigm of peaceful revolution.

* A Google search of "cold civil war" returns over 1000 hits. It is not clear who first used the phrase or when, though a German newspaper is cited from 1949 and Ayn Rand used it in the LA Times in 1962. References have been more frequent since the November 2000 U.S. presidential election and generally bear a surface level resemblance to the use in this paper.

** Voter Confidence Resolution, as adopted by Arcata, CA on 7/20/05: http://tinyurl.com/cr2va

Read the entire paper here: http://tinyurl.com/au2pj

This paper is also found in my new online book, We Do Not Consent: http://tinyurl.com/rlnr2 (.pdf)

[pat_k]

27. Focus on Values and a solution emerges

From original post:

. . . We have so much to offer and we can come up with a solution if we learn to compromise and keep an open mind. . .

As is so often the case, the important questions that face us are buried in the rigidly established terms of the debate. We need to get off the beaten path, not look for compromise.

The first step in finding a solution that serves the common good on immigration (or anything else for that matter) is to look at the problem from a new perspective -- one that is grounded in some basic truths and moral principles.

Here's my stab at outlining such an approach (also available online at http://january6th.org/borders.html)

Would appreciate any feedback.

Controlling Our Borders
Enacting and Enforcing Laws that Reflect Our Values

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.
  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 types 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.
  Well-publicized 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.

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 and our knowledge that a vigorous private sector cannot exist if work is not properly valued.

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 offset increased costs of goods or services to the working class through tax credits. (Should be part of a more comprehensive effort to shift 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 lower limit and the negative effect on wages is reduced.

We have a right enforce immigration law and deport violators

To make sense about the national interest in immigration, it is necessary to make distinctions between those who obey the law, and those who violate it. Therefore, we disagree, also, with those who label our efforts to control illegal immigration as somehow inherently anti-immigrant. Unlawful immigration is unacceptable. . .

. . .deportation is crucial. Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.

--Barbara Jordan, Chair, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform February 24, 1995

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 must 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" who are motivated to expose those who are not deterred.

Targeting predatory employers creates a new class of unemployable undocumented workers. If we don't institute a program that offers an opportunity to achieve legal (employable) status to those who are displaced, the deportation and support costs are likely to rise to intolerable levels.

If we decide that minimizing competition for jobs is worth the costs associated with deportation, the number of families who are offered legal status could be limited by entering those who qualify for legal status into a "lottery" of sorts. It may seem harsh to allow chance to determine who stays and who goes, but deportation must remain the default consequence of breaking our immigration laws.

First things first

We can't begin to make progress until we impeach Bush and Cheney and purge the new American fascists from our public institutions (http://january6th.org/impeachment_first.html>Impeachment First). Only then can we effectively engage in the messy -- but democratic -- process of dealing with this and other critical problems.

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 make our border with Mexico as impenetrable as possible, while weighing the costs against the benefits.

We cannot continue to hypocritically turn a blind eye to violations of our immigration laws or tolerate the exploitation of workers within our borders. As is often the case, committing to enacting and enforcing laws that that reflect our values is not just the right thing to do, it ultimately serves the common good.

[Cleita]

34. This is a good plan.

I fundamentally agree with you on your points.

[melissinha]

56. Can you address/clear up something for me? Taxes

Perhaps this is a naive/ininformed question, but here goes....

Are perdatory employers also stiffing the government on income taxes that are not paid to legal citizens and workers when they keep illegals off the books, and if that is true, are there any estimates as to the amount of legitimate tax dollars that the government should otherwise be getting?

[pat_k]

59. Would have to look up, but the figure may be offset by taxes collected.

. . .When I-9 requirements were enacted, a cottage industry in counterfeit proofs of legal status and citizenship emerged.

Those who use counterfeit proofs are paying income tax and contributing to social security. They often overpay income tax when they don't apply for refunds. The taxes collected may well offset the taxes that Predatory Employers and "under the table" workers evade. (Those with high quality counterfeit proofs are going to be the toughest to detect.)

When officials tell us there are 11 million undocumented workers here, Americans envision 11 million poor Hispanics. That is simply not the case. About 4 million are middle or upper class foreign national "overstays -- people here on expired student, work, or tourist visas.

For the most part, "overstays" are paying taxes too. Many are in the process of extending, but are caught up in a bureaucratic never never land -- these folks fall into Barbara Jordan's, "those who should get in, get in" (link).

Even if there is a net cost to revenue, that cost pales when compared to the egregious violation of our morals and values and the devastating effects on quality of life that are part and parcel of those violations. (Driving wages down, undermining unions, and the costs in human suffering and public resources that accompany our complicity in maintaining a permanent underclass.)

Given these costs, it is incredible that we have not acted. Unfortunately, inaction is promoted by the well-worn terms of the debate, which focus almost exclusively on "practicality" or expedience rather than the stark truths and immorality.

As I suggest in Controlling Our Borders, targeting predatory employers coupled with a whistleblower incentive program would be a big step forward toward eliminating our underground economy, but it is not a comprehensive solution:

. . .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 make our border with Mexico as impenetrable as possible, while weighing the costs against the benefits. . .

------------------------------
BTW. After thinking about it a bit more, the incentive for whistleblowers should be a cash reward -- a couple thousand or something. Citizens are exploited too and need to be motivated to come forward. Whistleblowers (individuals or groups) who are undocumented could apply the reward against fines they must pay to qualify for legal status as part of being put on a preferred/fast track to citizenship.

[melissinha]

66. reward towards fees

Whistleblowers (individuals or groups) who are undocumented could apply the reward against fines they must pay to qualify for legal status as part of being put on a preferred/fast track to citizenship.

I like this, its the least overt and wouldn't illicit "entitlement" comments from the right as much as straightforward rewards.

Back to taxes, could one state that by driving down wages by any means that this drives down the revenue from taxes particularly in this time of tax cuts?

I am not so sure that those overpayments and no refunds can really offset the many under the table jobs, but who am I to say? But you get many a right winger who does bring up the fact that they don't pay taxes but get services, it is my point that many employers are actually pocketing money that other wise would go to taxes (of course you understood what I meant). And especially when jobs go overseas, Americans and legal immigrants are at a disadvantage to overseas workers whose tax burden is lower abroad.

[pat_k]

68. The right wingers making those claims are easy to deal with

From Undocumented Immigrants: Myths and Reality

Undocumented immigrants pay the same real estate taxes--whether they own homes or taxes are passed through to rents--and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The majority of state and local costs of schooling and other services are funded by these taxes. Additionally, the U.S. Social Security Administration has estimated that three quarters of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, and that they contribute $6-7 billion in Social Security funds that they will be unable to claim (Porter 2005).

The "Myths" document has some useful information, but when we provide direct arguments against misguided claims, we legitimize them. The allocaiton of tax burden under current law is so unfair and immoral that any discussion of the effect on revenues of this or that action aren't useful.

I think we need to be dismissive when people get all worked up about tax revenues lost from minimum wage (or below) workers, or their use of public services (I don't like the idea of stepping over dead people in the streets; I'm happy to pay for medical care to prevent it and think most Americans feel the same way).

Public corruption or waste should not be ignored, whatever the scale, but it is not rational to get hysterical about dropping a penny when someone is taking hundreds out of our back pocket.

Lack of revenue from the folks at the bottom of the economic heap in the United States is not a problem. State and local spending varies, but only 10% of the entire federal discretionary budget goes to social services, training, and education. And only a miniscule fraction of that 10% comes from the 65 million American families who are surviving on under $30,000 a year.

Breakdown of the 65 million tax units/families (individual/joint + dependents) that make up the bottom 40%:

20 million units earn $0 to $10,000
25 million units earn $10,000 to $20,000
20 million units earn $20,000 to $30,000

Combined, these folks account for approximately 10% of the Individual (non-Corporate) income earned in the U.S and contribute approximately 4% of the 1,900 billion in federal revenue collected.

For example, in 2004, these folks contributed approx 90 billion of the 775 billion allocated to Soc. Sec and Medicare, and received approximately 25 billion in earned income tax credits for a net contribution of 65 billion.

There are approximately 4 million low wage (under $20,000) undocumented workers. Some percentage of these workers are accounted for in the above, but even if you assumed that none of these workers were included in the above figures, the impact on tax revenues or expenditures is so minor it can be ignored.

Corporations that are bringing in substantial profits and individuals who earn over $200,000 (top 5% or so) could not earn what they do without the public support and infrastructure paid for with our tax dollars -- the stable business environment, educated workers, clean water, roads, law enforcement, protection of property rights, social services (even if minimal) that maintain social stability, and on and on.

Fairness and equity demands that those among us who benefit the most must bear a vast majority of the cost of maintaining the system that makes it possible for them to BE at the top. Complaints about people at the bottom using public services or shirking their duty to pay their fair share are laughable when you step back and look at the massive evasion of responsibility and large scale corporate welfare going on at the top.

In the early 60s, corporate income tax accounted for 20-25% of our federal tax revenue, now it accounts for only 8-10%. The meager contribution that corporations make to cover the costs of citizenship might make sense if corporate net income was shrinking relative to individual income, but it is not. According to National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) data, employee compensation historically accounts for about 60% of the national income, while corporate profits account for about 10%. The numbers do fluctuate, but rarely by far.

We do not need to do something about the underground economy because undocumented workers are evading taxes or using public services; we must say no to the exploitation of workers because it is the moral thing to do. We must enforce our immigration laws because turning a blind eye undermines our credibility.

Someone complains about minimum wage earners not "pulling their weight." we can try to try to point them in the right direction, but if they stubbornly hold onto their silly notions, we must dismiss them and move on. It's just another case of horribly misplaced right wing anger. There are plenty of people to engage who are open to truth.

Estimates are based data in the following resources:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=221&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22
http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/TMDB/TMTemplate.cfm?Docid=1024
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310880_lowwage_immig_wkfc.pdf
http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm
http://www.civilrights.org/tools/printer_friendly.html?id=37836&print=true
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=53&FirstYear=2004&LastYear=2005&Freq=Qtr


------------------- Distribution of income tax burden over time ------------------------

In = Percent from Individual Income Tax
So = Percent from Social Security/Medicare Contributions
Co = Percent from Corporate Income Tax
Ot = Percent from Excise and Other

Year | In | So | Co | Ot
----------------------------
1938 | 20 | 23 | 20 | 40 FDR (1933-45)
1942 | 22 | 17 | 32 | 29 FDR
1946 | 40 | 8 | 30 | 21 Truman (1945-52)
1950 | 40 | 11 | 26 | 23 Truman
1954 | 42 | 10 | 30 | 17 Eisenhower (1953-1960)
1958 | 44 | 14 | 25 | 17 Eisenhower
1962 | 46 | 17 | 20 | 17 Kennedy (1961-63)
1966 | 42 | 20 | 23 | 15 Johnson (1963-68)
1970 | 47 | 23 | 17 | 13 Nixon (1969-74)
1974 | 45 | 29 | 15 | 12 Ford (1974-76)
1978 | 45 | 30 | 15 | 9 Carter (1977-80)
1982 | 48 | 33 | 8 | 11 Reagan (1981-88)
1986 | 45 | 37 | 8 | 10 Reagan
1990 | 45 | 37 | 9 | 9 Bush (1989-92)
1994 | 43 | 37 | 11 | 9 Clinton (1993-2000)
1998 | 48 | 33 | 11 | 8 Clinton
2002 | 43 | 39 | 8 | 11 Bush
2006 | 44 | 38 | 10 | 8 (est.)

=============================

IT = Individual Total (Income Tax + Social Security/Medicare)
Co = Percent from Corporate Income Tax

Year | IT | Co |
---------------------------
1938 | 43 | 20 | FDR (1933-45)
1942 | 39 | 32 | FDR
1946 | 48 | 30 | Truman (1945-52)
1950 | 51 | 26 | Truman
1954 | 52 | 30 | Eisenhower (1953-1960)
1958 | 58 | 25 | Eisenhower
1962 | 63 | 20 | Kennedy (1961-63)
1966 | 62 | 23 | Johnson (1963-68)
1970 | 70 | 17 | Nixon (1969-74)
1974 | 74 | 15 | Ford (1974-76)
1978 | 75 | 15 | Carter (1977-80)
1982 | 81 | 8 | Reagan (1981-88)
1986 | 82 | 8 | Reagan
1990 | 82 | 9 | Bush (1989-92)
1994 | 80 | 11 | Clinton (1993-2000)
1998 | 81 | 11 | Clinton
2002 | 82 | 8 | Bush

[melissinha]

69. you didn't understand my point

I do see yours, illegal immigratns pay other types of taxes like on purchases, rents, gas, etc, my point is that there are employers out there that are knowingly paying taxes to illegals (no the one with fake social sec #s that end up in the coffers) but when your employee isn't acknowledged legally means they aren't paying taxes on their behalf.... THATs not cool. Its not about the fair share of workers, but employers who are saving on income taxes.

[pat_k]

71. Yes, employers are evading their share. As I noted, sic'ing the IRS , , ,

. . .on Predatory Employers must be part of targing them.

As I said, we can't ignore corruption or waste, whatever the scale.

My post came out of my frustration with the number of "us" -- which may not include you -- who get caught up in arguments about whether or not undocumented workers are "pulling their weight." I think we need to avoid getting sucked in by dismissing claims that the problem has anything to do with revenue or use of services -- that's a bogus distraction. We cannot continue to tolerate the intolerable exploitation of workers within our borders and the motivation for action needs to be driven by that principle, not cost/benefit arguments.

[melissinha]

72. no I never fell into that one

my concern about taxes was about predatory employers... Rest assured. I am clearly aware that all people living manage to pay a lot in sales and indirect property taxes, etc. In fact for being paid so low I see them doing a lot of the work and morally speaking should be entitle to services. I agree the "pulling weight" argument is completely misguided and untrue. You are so right, there the new indentured servants or so the "Guest Worker" program and current situation would dictate.

This means that the little they earn goes to support the Mexican economy (second only to oil revenue if I am correct) meanwhile we have to borrow from China and Japan, what a MESS!

Revisited your post I think you are right on the money and this one in particular:

Corporations that are bringing in substantial profits and individuals who earn over $200,000 (top 5% or so) could not earn what they do without the public support and infrastructure paid for with our tax dollars -- the stable business environment, educated workers, clean water, roads, law enforcement, protection of property rights, social services (even if minimal) that maintain social stability, and on and on.

Now THAT is the true explanation for the Democrats' "liberal agenda", its one of my MAIN arguments for being a Democrat, we KNOW that the fat cats make so much profits off of the infrastructure of all the people below them, and therefore should contribute to that infrastructure.

[madokie]

37. good idea and muchly needed advice

[Breeze54]

38. Even Caesar Chávez fought against illegal immigration!!

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0329-21.htm

Today's Immigration Battle - Corporatists vs. Racists (and Labor is Left Behind)
by Thom Hartmann

The corporatist Republicans ("amnesty!") are fighting with the racist Republicans ("fence!"),
and it provides an opportunity for progressives to step forward with a clear solution
to the immigration problem facing America.

Both the corporatists and the racists are fond of the mantra,
"There are some jobs Americans won't do."
It's a lie.

Americans will do virtually any job if they're paid a decent wage.
This isn't about immigration - it's about economics.
Industry and agriculture won't collapse without illegal labor,
but the middle class is being crushed by it.

The reason why thirty years ago United Farm Workers' Union (UFW) founder
Caesar Chávez fought against illegal immigration, and the UFW turned in illegals
during his tenure as president, was because Chávez, like progressives since the 1870s,
understood the simple reality that labor rises and falls in price as a function of
availability.

As Wikipedia notes:
"In 1969, Chávez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valley
to the border of Mexico to protest growers' use of illegal aliens as temporary replacement
workers during a strike. Joining him on the march were both the Reverend Ralph Abernathy
and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale.
Chávez and the UFW would often report suspected illegal aliens who served
as temporary replacement workers as well as who refused to unionize to the INS."

Working Americans have always known this simple equation:
More workers, lower wages. Fewer workers, higher wages.

Progressives fought - and many lost their lives in the battle
- to limit the pool of "labor hours" available to the Robber Barons from the 1870s
through the 1930s and thus created the modern middle class.
They limited labor-hours by pushing for the 50-hour week and the 10-hour day
(and then later the 40-hour week and the 8-hour day).
They limited labor-hours by pushing for laws against child labor
(which competed with adult labor).
They limited labor-hours by working for passage of the 1935 Wagner Act that
provided for union shops.

And they limited labor-hours by supporting laws that would regulate immigration
into the United States to a small enough flow that it wouldn't dilute the unionized
labor pool. As Wikipedia notes: "The first laws creating a quota for immigrants were
passed in the 1920s, in response to a sense that the country could no longer absorb
large numbers of unskilled workers,
despite pleas by big business that it wanted the new workers."

Do a little math.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics says there are 7.6 million unemployed Americans right now.
Another 1.5 million Americans are no longer counted because they've become "long term"
or "discouraged" unemployed workers.
And although various groups have different ways of measuring it, most agree that at least
another five to ten million Americans are either working part-time when they want to work
full-time, or are "underemployed," doing jobs below their level of training, education,
or experience. That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans,
many unable to find above-poverty-level work.

At the same time,
there are between seven and fifteen million working illegal immigrants diluting our labor pool.

If illegal immigrants could no longer work, unions would flourish, the minimum wage would rise,
and oligarchic nations to our south would have to confront and fix their corrupt ways.

More at link.....

[Cleita]

39. That really worked out well. The bracero program was stopped.

Still we have a problem. If we don't make the employers accountable with stiff fines there will be no solution. The UFW tried to unionize the undocumented workers, but the employers threatened them so they didn't join and this more than anything undermined the efforts of the UFW.

By the way the LA Times is now putting out some astroturf about this issue because it's made a turn to the right thanks to the infiltration in their editorial pages of Jonah Goldberg, and PNACer Max Boot.

[Breeze54]

42. No fines!! Jail time!!!

I agree we need to go after the greedy corporations and employer's that hire them!
Throw their butts in jail for a couple of YEARS and let's arrest a token homemaker too,
one that hires an illegal gardener!
No excuses! No passes! ZERO TOLERANCE! (just like the repigs like to scream!)
Make examples out of them!
The article I posted; made a lot of sense to me....

and Frist is now calling for a vote on the bill this week.

And the AP has a new poll about immigration.

AP/Ipsos Poll:
More Than Half Open To Allowing Illegal Immigrants To Enter Temporary Worker Program
April 2, 2006
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3035

The survey found 62 percent of Democrats and 52 percent
of Republicans favored temporary worker status.

CONTRIBUTION OR DRAIN:
Some 51 percent of those polled said illegal immigrants mostly make a contribution
to American society, while 47 percent said illegal immigrants are a drain.
Also, 61 percent of those age 18-34 were more likely to say illegal immigrants
make a positive contribution, while 46 percent of those 35 and over felt that way.

Those most likely to say illegal immigrants make a contribution are:
people with college degrees, 64 percent;
Democrats, 62 percent compared with 41 percent of Republicans;
those earning more than $75,000 a year, 61 percent;
young people from 18-34, 61 percent;
and nonwhites, 61 percent.

Those most likely to say illegal immigrants are a drain:
people in rural areas, 53 percent;
Republicans, 51 percent compared with 33 percent of Democrats;
those over 65, 50 percent;
people with income under $25,000 a year, 47 percent.

Very telling poll!
And if you look at this:

"at least another five to ten million Americans are either working
part-time when they want to work full-time, or are "underemployed,"
doing jobs below their level of training, education, or experience.
That's between eight and twenty million un- and under-employed Americans,
many unable to find above-poverty-level work."

Would seem to me that this is why there are a lot of upset du'ers!!

[pat_k]

44. Yes, Jail time! Mandatory sentences for Predatory Employers

. . .and make getting caught and prosecuted a near certainty by implementing a whistleblower protection/incentive program.

See Controlling Our Borders: Enacting and Enforcing Laws that Reflect Our Values

[rman]

52. Superficially presented as a general concern, but obviously specific

to the immigration issue, where much of the impression of division is created by a very vocal minority.

And narrowly framed at that.
"limits"? "racist"?

I propose "limits" to reduce the problem of (illegal) immigration; limits on corporations' influence in government affairs, both domestically and abroad. Now go ahead and call me racist.

[LaurenG]

53. Why would I call you racist

and IMO there is nothing superficial about what I stated. I disagree with you on that. There is a problem, the solution lies within us.

There is a division and maybe by "only" a minority but each side has valid points. We can't use illegal immigration as the scape goat for all the huge problems we're having.

I grew up on the border, I was married to a police officer who worked along side border patrol. This isn't a new problem. However, it is being re brought to the attention of all of us.

In the big picture my opinion doesn't mean a thing and I am not an expert on anything so why would it, I do however feel I have a right to voice it. Why would you and/or others like you continue to take offense at the most harmless of statements and always find something to be disagreeable about.

:shrug:

[rman]

54. I didn't mean to say your statement is superficial,

just that superficially your statement seems to voice a general concern, while in fact it is specific to the immigration issue.
Perhaps i was oversensitive in my reaction to your post. I do think however that most DU-ers do realize the problem isn't so much with (illegal) immigrants per se but rather that the root cause lies with big corporations meddling in government affairs. In so far that there is division of opinion between liberals, i don't view it as as much of a problem as you apparently do.

[endarkenment]

55. Karl Rove Loves This Diversion

The corporate kleptocracy has managed to turn our attention away from their misdeeds and instead get us fighting among ourselves over the crumbs they toss from the plate. Classic divide and conquer tactics, and it is working like a charm.

[stellanoir]

57. So true Ohio Blues

thanks for posting dear.

[robinlynne]

58. There is one KEY issue here, which we can all agree upon.

The reason the republicans are bringing this issue to light is the GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. This concept is funded by a right wing thinktank, paid for by walmart and other big corporations. That single issue is what they want, and what we should rally against. I ask again, for everyon to google and learn about the EWIC, essential worker immigration coalition. It is based on the premise that there is a "shortage of skilled and unskilled labor in the united states". and iit seeks to remedy this "problem" for large corporations. The rest is conversation. This is what Bush is trying to push through. It would permit large companies to legally create an excess worker pool when they want to bring wages down. It is an absurd, evil concept, which has nothing to do wiht legalizing illelgal immigrants or, on the other hand, closing borders. What is in play here is legally paying less to workers who are already earning little. Look beyond the obvious! They do NOT caer about the immigrants; they do not care about the borders. While we argue back and forth about these issues they are sneaking in the GUEST WORKER PROGRAM. That is what we should unite against, no matter what. It does not legalize illegals. It does not address the3 border. It does one thing only: lowers wages. It is bad for the immigrnats. It is bad for the Americans. It is good for walmart.

[laheina]

80. That's an awesome angle robinlynne,

Shout it from the rooftops around here, and people will start to listen. :)

[Shine]

63. Well spoken, Ohio Blues. I stand with you, in friendship.

We are ALL in this, together, so let's hold a Higher Vision of what's possible in this country. :grouphug:



:patriot:

[K8-EEE]

64. I Have Learned A Lot From The Discussion

I have no problem ignoring the few hotheads....like every controversial subject, I've learned a lot and been shown a lot of new viewpoints and sources. We are thinkers here and therefore there will be tussles over complicated issues -- that's just the way I like it.

We don't have to "be on the same page" of ideological thinking, the truth is found in the process of hashing it out. I'm all for it.

I love DU!

[Gman]

65. I had to look at your profile to see when you joined DU

My first thought was, "he's new." November 2004 is still relatively new. You shoulda been around here in '02 for the wailing and gnashing of teeth on election night in November! I didn't know there was so much blame to go around to so many people. Maybe you were lurking during the Primary Wars in spring '04.

Good God, Man. We're Democrats! What do you expect? All this is completely normal.