Thank you G-D! Immigration reform bill is pulled....

[Patroklos]

If you don't think it is a problem then thats great. But if you do then we are wasting time.

But you can't ***** about immigation reform when you won't even enforce the current laws. For all we know there is no reform needed. The current system if applied may very well work.

[DanS]

For the record, I find your and Dino's enforcement argument to be more than a little facile.

[Patroklos]

And I can confirm that despite wave after wave of prostitution stings, we still have hordes turning tricks in my town each night.

Prostitution stings applied to illegal immigration would be like arresting the customer of a pizza palor because he knew the line cooks were illegal.

I guess I should say sting in general.

[Patroklos]

For the record, I find your and Dino's enforcement argument to be more than a little facile.

I have yet to see one criticism of it that doesn't amount to "meh, I can't be arsed to do it, ."

[DanS]

That's more than a little unfair. Some of us don't live in BFE. In my neighborhood, you are talking about 10 - 20% of the population leaving, if in some way you were successful in enforcing the law (good luck!).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
For the record, I find your and Dino's enforcement argument to be more than a little facile.

When something sounds like the 86 compromise which incidentally included the arguement of enforcement is shoved in front of me again, why shouldn't I be suspicious that those promises will go unfulfilled this time as well Dan? I'd like to not do this yet again in 20 years.

[Patroklos]

Some of us don't live in BFE.

Niether do I.

In my neighborhood, you are talking about 10 - 20% of the population leaving, if in some way you were successful in enforcing the law (good luck!).

Sounds like alot of neighoorhood constuction workers, maids, janitors, fast food types, and whatever other low skill jobs will be getting a very big pay raise

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DanS
What can I say? Not everyone has your moral outrage on the matter.

I dont have the moral outrage, but to say that we cant reduce the hiring of illegals because there is an informal labor market, seems silly. we could add SOME requirements to all employers of day laborers.

I presume if we PASS this legislation, there will be pressure to do just that, to prevent further migration of illegals.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Unfortunately the requirements to make the current laws enforceable are part and parcel of the what appears now to be defunct bill. While in effect perhaps the easiest way is to crack down on employers is a means to disincentive illegals in practice that is equally problematic. Employers are under no real requirement to have some meaningful background check on prospective employees. Anyone with a forged ID can and will be employed. Only by adding massive resources (cost to government) would the infrastructure be in place to allow quick background checks complete with checks re: unique non-counterfeited ID's.

[Ramo]

I'm real disappointed in these traitors especially Boxer as they're mainly reacting at of fear instead of any sort of idea about how the system should be reformed and made to work.

Actually, Boxer was one of the two (possibly three) people Wesley was criticizing. She thought that the compromise put illegal immigrants through too much bull****.

Can someone like Ramo answer me this though? Why is favoring skills something the left dislikes? Shouldnt the left be concerned about income distribution here, and helping poor and working class US citizens more than upper middle class US citizens? Doesnt allowing in unskilled folks, and keeping out skilled workers and professionals, hurt the weakest elements in our society? Wouldnt it be more progressive to keep out the unskilled, and therefore attempt to raise unskilled wages, but let in the skilled, esp in those fields in most demand?

Because this policy gives more rights to rich people than poor people, and doesn't prioritize family reunifications (I'm not that concerned about the former, but the latter I think is a significant error in the compromise). On the other hand, I also don't care for whining about H1B's among some parts of the left...

But if you really want a policy like this - restricting the number of poor immigrants in this country, you might want to reconsider your support for free trade. Since you've got exactly the same pressures on wages (acting on a slightly different subset of jobs).

I'm not sure why you're asking me, though, since my views on immigration and trade are worlds apart from most of the left.

Mickey Kaus at Slate is the only one I know forcefully making this argument.

I thought he's part of the neanderthal anti-"amnesty" crowd...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Most countries I know of have that law, if you are born there you are of that nationality

Actually, no.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
For the record, I find your and Dino's enforcement argument to be more than a little facile.

I agree. Nobody's done anything to dispute my 10% number for the scale of the US underground economy. That's 1.4 trillion dollars a year on which taxes, FICA etc are not paid.

I guarantee you that you would have a massive amount of trouble moving that mountain.

[Patroklos]

That's 1.4 trillion dollars a year on which taxes, FICA etc are not paid.

Exactly. Plenty of excuses to arrest, inprison or otherwise influence any person/group involved.

I guarantee you that you would have a massive amount of trouble moving that mountain.

I agree, I just don't think it is impossible. And has to happen really.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

Because this policy gives more rights to rich people than poor people,

Foreign poor people. I think of a genuine left as actually being composed of poor people, and so since foreigners dont vote, a real left in the USA would place the interests of American poor people ahead of the interests of both foreign poor and domestic rich, who are the groups that benefit from immigration of the poor.


I suspect the real politics behind favoring chain migration over skills migration is A. Current legal immigrants, who want to bring over their own relations B. Upper class liberals, whose hearts bleed for foreign poor as much as domestic poor, and who dont have their own class interests at stake. C. Middle class netroots types who want to exclude all those Indian programmers D. Union leaders, who figure most unskilled labor isnt organized anyway, and dont want to endanger their constituents in skilled labor unions.

and doesn't prioritize family reunifications (I'm not that concerned about the former, but the latter I think is a significant error in the compromise).

Im not sure why chain migration is a leftist principle.

On the other hand, I also don't care for whining about H1B's among some parts of the left...

ok.

if you really want a policy like this - restricting the number of poor immigrants in this country, you might want to reconsider your support for free trade. Since you've got exactly the same pressures on wages (acting on a slightly different subset of jobs).

I dont disagree with the economics behind this point. I note that many on the left who oppose free trade for this reason, also oppose prioritizing skills, which makes no sense to me.

From the POV of a pro free trader Id say this. We can push for free trade in all areas. We could push, as I presume you do, for free migration in all areas. But IF we are going to limit the quantity of immigration, whether out of a rational view of the limits on how many we can successfully assimilate/absorb per year, or in concession to xenophobia, THEN it would be most progressive (in terms of domestic income distribution impact) to let in the skilled. If we similarly had a limit on total imports we could allow, it would similarly make sense to let those imports made with more skilled labor. For the same reason.

not sure why you're asking me, though, since my views on immigration and trade are worlds apart from most of the left.

Ok

I thouht he's part of the neanderthal anti-"amnesty" crowd...

I think he may well oppose amnesty overall, but he has tried to position it from an income dist POV, and hes much more sophisticated than any of the neanderthals. Basically he likes to pose hard questions, and on this issue he mainly poses it of the pro-immigration crowd, and specifically of the labor left. I dont think income distribution overall is really near and dear to his heart (hes a more market leaning neoliberal on most issues than I am) but hes good at pointing up contradictions in others positions.

[EyesOfNight]

How do you plan to enforce those laws? Are you going to deport 13 million people?

Yes. It's called American ingenuity.