Legalize illegal immigration, YES or NO


The article is biased, conclusion is wrong in my opinion, however it has some good points. The core of the issue is:
From 2000-2009, we issued over 10 million green cards, the highest decade of American history. Currently, there are 38 million immigrants, 24 million of whom are in the workforce. This does not include temporary workers. DHS did not release the 2009 figures yet, but they issued 912,735 temporary employment authorizations in 2008.
Most of these immigrants are low skilled and from the Third World. Less than 10 percent of new green card holders are from Europe. People of extraordinary ability, investors, and immigrants with advanced degrees made up less than 8 percent of the new immigrants.
Faced with these numbers, how can anyone argue with a straight face that we don’t admit enough immigrants?

If the goal is to select only the best, why were 92% low-skilled people approved for green-card? By penalizing 100%, you are baring the access for the 8%. These guys really made the difference in the past and I cannot see how U.S. can afford to drive them away.
It goes back to my initial argument regarding structure of the immigration process ...
 
Another point of view from Shamus Cooke:

Because of the economic crisis, massive unemployment, corporate bailouts, home foreclosures, and criminal activity of Wall Street, the majority of people in the U.S. have never been as passionately anti-corporation. But the corporate owned media plus the wealthy, elite-controlled Congress reacted quickly to these intolerable circumstances and fought back.

They took the fight over public opinion to the airwaves, and massively pushed the blame for the dismal state of the U.S. economy onto those unable to defend themselves — immigrants.

One can either focus their political rage on the billionaires who dominate the economy and Congress —Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, etc. — or those millions of undocumented immigrants, many who get paid lower than minimum wage and are living in society’s shadows.

The corporate media would rather you focus on immigrants. Thus, Fox News and virtually all other media outlets spew nightly venom at a vulnerable public, looking to get revenge on immigrants who “ruined America.” There is an obvious connection to this type of racist propaganda and the increase in hate crimes against Latinos that has exploded over the years.

...Obama and the Democrats have again betrayed another key constituency. Their shift to the right is the outcome of a crumbling economy that cannot be corrected without directly confronting the gigantic wealth and power of U.S. corporations. These corporations control the Democratic Party, who can only respond by the same immigrant scapegoating that the Republicans advocate.

To shield themselves from popular anger, the U.S. corporate elite is promoting the most right-wing ideas to millions of people, so that social passions can be channeled towards society’s victims: immigrants, minorities, homosexuals, women who choose to get an abortion, etc. Workers organized in unions are also being targeted.

I suspect both points of view are correct.
 
Even the most blatant exaggerations are built upon some kernel(s) of truth. And the fact is that when there are few jobs to go around, the last thing we want is more people coming into the country to compete with those who already are looking for employment.

And frankly, attacking the people who are different is nothing new. As for the banksters controlling the economy, what else is new? Everyone gets funded by someone who isn't the common people, because the common people don't have money to give.

So whether it's big oil on the right, or big banks and the hedgies on the left, it's a case of the lesser of N evils at any point in time, N being two in this case. I guess you can say that the hedgies are on the side of the common man if they're like George Soros and Jim Simons, but those two seem to be the exception, not the rule.

Either way, the one thing that doesn't change about the USA is the free for all nature of the system, for better or for worse.
 
If the goal is to select only the best, why were 92% low-skilled people approved for green-card? By penalizing 100%, you are baring the access for the 8%. These guys really made the difference in the past and I cannot see how U.S. can afford to drive them away.
It goes back to my initial argument regarding structure of the immigration process ...

Is there an explicit goal to attract only the best? Or is it just more froth coming from corporate shills and cheerleaders who want larger number of immigrants and will use any disingenuous argument at hand?

I don't think the US will ever turn away the 8% -- regardless of what populist voices urge.
 
Is there an explicit goal to attract only the best? Or is it just more froth coming from corporate shills and cheerleaders who want larger number of immigrants and will use any disingenuous argument at hand?

It's a corporate and academic goal as well. If the country wants to be competitive in technical fields and the domestic supply is limited, then you have to look outside the borders. That should be the whole idea behind the green-card process.

I don't think the US will ever turn away the 8% -- regardless of what populist voices urge.

Never say never. If there are enough road-blocks, then skilled immigrants will be driven away slowly ...
 
It's a corporate and academic goal as well. If the country wants to be competitive in technical fields and the domestic supply is limited, then you have to look outside the borders. That should be the whole idea behind the green-card process.

But see, this is where it gets interesting. People like Bill Gates argue that the competitiveness of their companies -- and by implication that of the US economy -- depends on upping the number of skilled migrant workers allowed in. And this because there aren't enough available indigenously (so the argument goes). But the stats reveal another story. Thus, a few years back, unemployment among 50-year-old US computer programmers was 20% (it must surely be higher now). It would appear that there is local talent around -- but capital doesn't want to pay the going rate and works incessantly to undercut it. The history of immigration to the US seems to be largely (if not completely) about capital trying to undercut the wages and benefits of domestically available labor by importing cheaper immigrants. This side of the argument tends not to be heard in corporate-controlled mass media. And those who voice it are promptly dubbed "racist."

The argument with regard to skilled labor is analogous to the one used for unskilled labor. Thus the farm lobby argues that it can't find labor and so must import Mexicans. The disingenuous (but unstated) part of the argument is they can't find domestic labor because they're only willing to pay $4-$5 an hour for 12-hour backbreaking work in stifling heat and in an environment replete with pesticides. If they provided a living wage and better working conditions, they would have domestic applicants. Regardless of skilled or unskilled, capital wants cheaper and cheaper labor.
 
Student’s Arrest Tests Immigration Policy - NYTimes.com

ATLANTA — Jessica Colotl, a 21-year-old college student and illegal Mexican immigrant was arrested in March for driving without a license and could face deportation next year.
“I never thought that I’d be caught up in this messed-up system,” Ms. Colotl said Friday at a news conference after being released on $2,500 bail. “I was treated like a criminal, like a threat to the nation.”

She and her lawyer declined to discuss the immigration status of her parents.

Civil rights groups say Ms. Colotl should be spared deportation because she was brought to the United States without legal documents by her parents at age 11. They also note that she has excelled academically and was discovered to be here illegally only after a routine traffic violation.
Supporters of immigration laws and the sheriff’s office in Cobb County say she violated state law, misled the police about her address and should not receive special treatment for her age or education.


No exception should be made, however admirable the offender, said Phil Kent, a spokesman for Americans for Immigration Control, a national group opposed to illegal immigration.
“Ironically, she says she wants to go on to law school, but she’s undermining the law,” Mr. Kent said. “What’s the point of educating an illegal immigrant in a system where she can’t hold a job legally or get a driver’s license?”
 
The law is the law, and no matter how stupid it is, if you break it, you face the consequences, if you are caught.

Also, I wholeheartedly agree with BBW's post. The reason I chose not to major in CS is that A) so many jobs were being outsourced to India/China, and B) so many immigrants coming in to do just that. However, there is no dearth of technical talent here back in the states. In fact, I simply believe that if the American government wants America to prosper in the leading edges of innovation, just mandate all graduate schools to only admit American citizens. They might be private institutions, but are still bound by American laws.
 
The law is the law, and no matter how stupid it is, if you break it, you face the consequences, if you are caught.

It depends on you are. We live in a plutocracy (masquerading as a democracy). If you're enough of a big fish, you get a slap on the wrist (at most) for flagrantly violating the laws. There's a set of laws that applies to the majority of the population. And another set -- or rather no set -- that applies to those at the pinnacle.

Also, I wholeheartedly agree with BBW's post. The reason I chose not to major in CS is that A) so many jobs were being outsourced to India/China, and B) so many immigrants coming in to do just that. However, there is no dearth of technical talent here back in the states. In fact, I simply believe that if the American government wants America to prosper in the leading edges of innovation, just mandate all graduate schools to only admit American citizens. They might be private institutions, but are still bound by American laws.

Which "America?" If it's the America of the rich and powerful, they're happy with mass immigration. Keeps the locals in line, and allows wage to converge (pointwise if not uniformly) to subsistence levels. It achieves wonders for the bottom line and has private coffers overflowing. If it's the other "America" -- that of the average fellow in the street -- then immigration is mostly bad news. But the USA is a plutocracy and politicians are marionettes of corporate overlords.
 
The US has a right to decide how many people come into this country. Every nation on this planet (including Mexico) has laws regulating immigration. No one is against LEGAL immigration. People here illegally are breaking the law. Yes, it is sad because many are just coming here to find a better life for their family, but we cannot allow people to come here without going through a normal process. If anything it insults the millions of people who have come here through the long and arduous process of legally gaining citizenship.

Furthermore, illegal immigration hurts recent immigrants and poor individuals the most. Educated and white collar workers are not losing their jobs because of illegals. The people with very little education or work experience are the ones losing good paying construction or labor jobs because of undocumented illegals willing to work under the table for very little. Unfortunately the politicians have made this issue out to be a racist attack against human rights and Mexican American citizens which it is not.
 
I believe the UK is cracking down slightly on immigration now as well, although the UK PM suggested this wouldn't affect skilled workers.

If you come from India though, I think you get a better deal in the UK. Putting aside the already large well established Indian community and things such as Cricket, Indian's legally resident in the UK are entitled to vote in the UK elections. My understanding from speaking with friends is that the system to obtain permanent residency then UK (and thus EU) citizenship is easier then the US (even with the new UK citizenship test).
 
There are lot of interesting facts in this case
Steve Li to be released today, following Feinstein's private bill : City Insider

The DREAM Act, which failed to pass in Congress in September, would grant undocumented immigrant children citizenship if they entered the United States before age 15 and were attending college.

Li's case has attracted attention because he says he has no friends or family in Peru. His parents were born in China but moved to Peru in the 1980s to escape the government's one-child policy. They brought Li to the United States when he was 11.

The three were arrested in San Francisco on Sept. 15 because they were allowed to stay in the United States only through 2002. Li's parents were released and wear electronic ankle bracelets as they await deportation to China, but their son was sent to a detention center in Florence, Ariz., on Oct. 8.
 
I reject a basic premise of the question.

It assumes that more people will illegally move to the USA if existing illegals are made citizens.

Most illegals tend towards lower income / lower education jobs for whom there are few if any decent jobs in their home country. Such people have high discount rates, in other words they need and want money now.
That means a vague hope that in (say) 10 or 20 years time they might get citizenship is simply not a factor in their decision making.

I have a view that most would characterise as quite right wing which is that the success of a country is mostly determined by the quality of people that live there. Also I model the benefits of citizenship as an economic good, and therefore should have a price. Things you are given are never valued as much as things you have worked hard to buy.

I think that citizenship should therefore be earned by some combination of money and services rendered. An obvious first path is via service to the state. With an ageing population, Medicaid needs carers, and of course however you see the future it is clear that the army will need troops.

One service is to pay your share of the costs of running the USA, so I would allow people to earn citizenship by paying taxes. If Americans have freely chosen to pay you X for your work in a legitimate job, then f(x) in tax represents a contribution to the nation. You could argue that a child born in the USA effectively inherits 1/300,000,000th of the value of the country in terms of infrastructure and other national assets. So I reckon if you pay (say) $150,000 in tax, you've earned your way to the place of a native born.

I believe this works rather well with American culture where earned position is seen as more virtuous.
The earned citizens will (on average) be more loyal to the USA because they have put blood and sweat into belonging. Also, this is an 'audited' process. Crooks don't pay much tax, and if you sign up for this scheme, any major wrongdoing damages your asset in accrued citizenship.

Points towards citizenship can be earned by work that helps people giving charities a useful workforce that does not cost the government anything.
 
I agree. Also, sending people to detention centers is absurd.
If a person is illegal in a certain country, just arrange to be sent back to country of origin. No need to persecute. At same time, personal details are recorded, tighten the borders so they won't be able to come back the next day.

I think slowly, more people understand that discussion isn't immigration vs no immigration, it's about legal immigration vs no immigration ...
 
Stefan suggests that you send people back to the country of origin, which has certain technical difficulties...

For a start they may refuse to tell you.

Or they may lie.

Just because someone "looks hispanic" does not mean they didn't come from Canada.

Or they may claim to have come from Spain, since a large % of illegals are from Spanish speaking countries, it is some effort to disprove that. I just imagine some brain dead evanglical bozo from Homeland security phoning the Spanish embassy and saying "does some guy called "Huan" come from your country".

I am frequently scathing of the racist jerks in Homeland Security, and although some are smart and dedicated, and put their lives on the line for fat old gits like me for far too little pay, the fact is that the system won't be run by smart people. The only smart people involved in the immigration system are the lobbyists for firms who make serious money out of the mess.

That's an important issue in system design.

Ask yourself why (for instance) Irish people get such an easy ride through the immigration process ? It's because of institutional racism that starts at the immigration gates and goes all the way up to Congress. The fact that I personally would benefit from such as system because to my shame I have Irish ancestry, does not warm me to it.

No one seems to be judging possible new systems, or even the old one on what comes out the other end. Partly because crazies like the Tea Party want a whites-only system, whose position differs only from organised labor in which set of non-whites they are prejudiced against.

A good test for any powert you are granting the government, is to assume that within a few years it will be in the hands of the people you don't want to have this power. There is a serious chance that bimbo Palin will be the next President. You may be OK about that, but using history as a guide Obama's successor may be someone far to the left of him, or Jon Stewart, who can tell ?
 
Back
Top Bottom