[WapSaibiar]

The solution is simple: cut the amount of places in your higher education facilities in half and do the same with welfare payments. This and your economiñ recession will create enough uneducated low-skilled Americans to fill in the jobs attractive to Hispanic immigrants. If everything works well, you'll probably be able to employ domestic garment workers for the same price as overseas ones.

[Hrennilasi]

I'm pro-immigration, but 1-3 are totally moronic... there are arguments that could be made, but whomever wrote this article is not so smart.

[enentique]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The only way to solve the current immigration crisis will be to legalize undocumented workers who have paid their dues and to increase economic integration with Mexico and the rest of Latin America in order to reduce poverty and emigration pressures south of the border.

The rest is, for the most part, populist demagoguery.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_548344.html I thought the only way to solve the problem was to make a strong declarative statement with no proof, after setting up and burning 5 straw men?

Boy was I suprised!

[Jeffery]

1. I do not want my country over run by a foreign culture which does in many, though not all instances, learn the language.

2. I do not want to pay my taxes to support social programs on the local, state and federal level of people who do not pay some, or any taxes.

3. Some jobs, such as the construction industry, Americans really would do, if the wages were not driven into a hole by employers who pay illegal immigrants very little or below the minimum wage.

4. The violation of federal laws on a mass scale irks me.

5. Employers violating laws on a mass scale also irks me.

[Nikkkola]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So it's impossible to jump the hoops and immigrate legally? I'm sorry Oerdin. I just don't buy that. As for low skilled immigrants, there is even higher demand for educated immigrants and yes it is possible for them to immigrate.

I'm surprised that you aren't considering the demand for H-IB visas throughout the US, it's huge.

Yes the process is cumbersome, but that should spur initiatives to make the process easier, not to remove it altogether. I'm surprised. Do you really want to eliminate the immigration process entirely Oerdin? That's not the weak link in that argument... the point is that UNSKILLED immigrants are in high demand but are basically unable to get in; and who exactly is going to pay the significant monetary (and time) costs to get someone to pick their grapes, bus tables in their restaurant, or trim their hedges?

The proper argument is, "If you're against ILLEGAL immigration solely due to the illegal/untracked nature of it, then expand legal immigration to make it possible for people to legally come over here for unskilled jobs. It is not currently practical for this to occur."


Good question. Many can and do call for restrictions on all immigration, not just Mexican immigration, understanding that it's not where the immigrants come from, but the process of flouting the immigration laws. I think it's just as wrong as when Canadians do it as it is for Mexicans. Everyone who can and wants to immigrate should do so legally and jump the hoops, rather then doing so illegally.

Anti-immigration sentiment is often a 'pc' version of anti-non-american sentiment (the common sentiment felt across the world for "I don't like (them), they're different than us". Sadly, it is indeed often 'where the immigrants come from', in that many opponents object to hispanics who are legally here just as quickly as illegal...


Why did the Democrats, the party of Wilson and the party of 'immigrants' pass laws establishing immigration quotas?

That's my question for you Oerdin. Yes, you guys are a nation of immigrants, but in the 20th century, when they established welfare, they also put down immigration controls. No welfare, no immigration controls.

Maybe the issues are linked? Naah. After all, why would the American government be concerned of people who are on welfare yet don't pay taxes?

That's a silly straw man... immigration quotas came with a US that was becoming concerned with the happenings of the outside world, and wanting to avoid being involved in such. They're not related to welfare as far as I'm concerned, as I'm fairly sure that if we ended welfare tomorrow the laws would stay. It's amazingly simple to restrict welfare to non-immigrants...


I think the fence is an expensive boondoggle, but heck, go on. All of the 'anti immigrant people' I have spoken to have said that enforcement not the fence is the crucial thing. A nation that doesn't stand by their laws isn't a nation whatsoever.

The fence is the best argument of that relatively poor article. The fence is no better than the berlin wall as far as I'm concerned; it's there for the political gain from saying "I'm pro-american and anti-mexican" and nothing else. A sad day for America if it gets built.

IOW you do support amnesty and open borders. You've just restated the core principle of both, namely 'forgiving' those who have already came and giving them citizenship. That's amnesty. As for open borders, you believe that immigration controls are a bad thing, don't you Oerdin?
It's quite possible to be against general amnesty (like 1984) but for allowing a legal path to citizenship for those who will take the appropriate steps. As you said above, jump through the hoops... it's just that the hoops are too hard/expensive to jump through right now, and there are too few of them; let's make the hoops more accessible and more numerous, in keeping with the demand of the economy. Immigration controls are not bad; unreasonable immigration policy is.

Our nation is having a serious problem with the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the main problem is the lack of people to do the work. It's a combination of wages - having to pay people more to retain them in an overly small job market - and simply lack of people in general. Increase the pool of people that are willing and interested in doing these jobs - in a reasonable, economically sustainable fashion - and perhaps we keep more factories over here instead of sending them south. More jobs, more Americans, and a stronger economy... what's not to like?

[xtrudood]

I didn't see a single myth in there Oerdin. In fact, his pathetic attempt at portraying legitimate gripes as such backfired horribly.

Oerdin, doing my job for me

[popandopulus]

That's not the weak link in that argument... the point is that UNSKILLED immigrants are in high demand but are basically unable to get in; and who exactly is going to pay the significant monetary (and time) costs to get someone to pick their grapes, bus tables in their restaurant, or trim their hedges? Good question.

I was just pointing out that the immigration to the US is much more then just unskilled labour, it is the skilled labour too. To say that all immigration is unskilled is painting a false picture.

The proper argument is, "If you're against ILLEGAL immigration solely due to the illegal/untracked nature of it, then expand legal immigration to make it possible for people to legally come over here for unskilled jobs. It is not currently practical for this to occur." Actually you can, there's a separate category for it, but as I am told it's difficult and time consuming. It didn't used to be that way, but there also wasn't welfare back then either.

Anti-immigration sentiment is often a 'pc' version of anti-non-american sentiment (the common sentiment felt across the world for "I don't like (them), they're different than us". Sadly, it is indeed often 'where the immigrants come from', in that many opponents object to hispanics who are legally here just as quickly as illegal... It's a straw man and not worthy of discussion. Saying they are just "racists" is wrong. Many people who are minorities themselves have problems with illegal immigration. Did you ever think about that, but I guess it's just evil whitey keeping the brown people down.

That's a silly straw man... immigration quotas came with a US that was becoming concerned with the happenings of the outside world, and wanting to avoid being involved in such. So the US in the 19th century wasn't concerned about the outside world at all? I think this is a very weak argument.

Look it up. When were immigration controls established in the first place and why did the policy change? I'll hint that it had something to do with Margaret Sanger and limiting the number of evil brown people from the US.

It's quite possible to be against general amnesty (like 1984) but for allowing a legal path to citizenship for those who will take the appropriate steps. I'm not sure it is possible to do both, unless you believe it's ok under a democratic president and not ok under a republican.

As you said above, jump through the hoops... it's just that the hoops are too hard/expensive to jump through right now, and there are too few of them; let's make the hoops more accessible and more numerous, in keeping with the demand of the economy. Immigration controls are not bad; unreasonable immigration policy is. The problem with this is that the hoops for legal immigration apply BEFORE they come to the US. If you grant amnesty for those who are already there, then you basically remove the incentive for people to get their affairs in order before they come.

More jobs, more Americans, and a stronger economy... what's not to like? I would support making it easier to come over, but it is necessary for the US to keep the restrictions they had on people entering the country. Your suggestions just seem like amnesty to me.

[IRYzouNv]

Originally posted by dannubis

1. As I do not live in your country, I can not comment on your particular situation. However, looking at the situation in my country I can say those "over run" comments are very often exagerated to a large degree (I am not saying there aren't any problems, but our culture is not in danger of being overrun). But I did not. I said in many, though not all.

2. I don't think illegal immigrants get acces to a lot of social programs. Besides the additional profit your companies make by employing these people will generate more then enough taxes to cover these losses. They sure do. Do you know how much school taxes cost in some parts of the united states? Local municipalities tax extra to pay for local schools, in some areas the taxes are quite a lot. I do not know of any school which demands proof of citizenship. The school system I went to as a child has been having serious problems for the last 8 years because it does not have enough seats for all the students, most of the growth is from illegal immigrants.

3. That is indeed a problem. On the other hand, if these guys were legal they still would work for less than the average John Doe. (the difference would be smaller I agree, but I just don't see how keeping starting a man hunt on illegal aliens out is going to improve the situation). Less then the average joe is not less then the minimum wage. Also, they may unionize if they were no longer illegal.

My solution is first, severly fine those who hire illegal immigrants, on the second offense, imprison them.

Get the fence built at the same time. We will go from there.

[ggiifdfalls]

I presume the people advocating a fence just want to make sure that the mexicans coming over the border are physically fit enough, or resourceful enough to get over/under it? Make sure you only get the best quality illegals.

[rionetrozasa]

"Undocumented immigrant". Interesting euphemism, which smacks Mr Oppenheimer in the face when he uses it thusly: "And, by the way, nearly half of all undocumented immigrants enter the country legally, and overstay their visas."

If they had a visa, they're not 'undocumented', they're simply in possession of expired 'documentation'. And yet, they're illegal just the same as the ones who snuck across the border. Why the pains to avoid that term, Mr. Oppenheimer?

[bF8CCmmr]

Originally posted by snoopy369

I'm pro-immigration, but 1-3 are totally moronic... there are arguments that could be made, but whomever wrote this article is not so smart. ANDRES OPPENHEIMER is the Latin American editor and foreign affairs columnist with The Miami Herald. His syndicated column, The Oppenheimer Report, appears twice a week in The Miami Herald and more than 40 U.S. and Latin American newspapers, including La Nacion of Argentina and Reforma of Mexico. He is a regular political analyst with CNN en Español, and a frequent guest at PBS' Jim Lehrer News Hour.

His previous jobs at The Miami Herald included Mexico City bureau chief, foreign correspondent, and business writer. He previously worked for five years with The Associated Press in New York, and has contributed on a free-lance basis to The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, CBS News, and the BBC.

He is the co-winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize as a member of The Miami Herald team that uncovered the Iran-Contra scandal. He won the Inter-American Press Association Award twice (1989 and 1994); the 1997 award of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists; the 1993 Ortega y Gasset Award of Spain's daily El País; the 1998 Maria Moors Cabot Award of Columbia University; the 2001 King of Spain Award, given out by the Spanish news agency EFE and King Juan Carlos I of Spain; and an Overseas Press Club Award in 2002. The Ortega y Gasset and the King of Spain awards are the two most prestigious journalism awards in the Spanish-speaking world.

Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, he studied law for four years at the University of Buenos Aires' Law School, and moved to the United States in 1976 with a fellowship from the World Press Institute. Afer a year at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, he obtained a Master's degree in Journalism from Columbia University in New York in 1978.

...

Oppenheimer was selected by the Forbes Media Guide as one of the “500 most important journalists” of the United States in 1993, and by Poder magazine as one of the “100 most powerful people” in Latin America in 2002. Agenda? Absolutely. Smart? Probably.

I'm not trying to bag on you snoopy -- Your other post is spot on in my opionion. It's just that I was also wondering who this dude was.

[Nautilus]

Not a very convincing article, and I'm generally pro-immigration.

#2 in particular pissed me off. Poorly argued. If you're going to call somebody (or a bunch of somebodies) racist, back it the **** up. Examples. Specifics. Not a steaming pile of accusation.

There are a number of other holes in the article, but that one really jumped out at me. Meh.

-Arrian

[LOVEBoy]

Originally posted by MikeH
I presume the people advocating a fence just want to make sure that the mexicans coming over the border are physically fit enough, or resourceful enough to get over/under it? Make sure you only get the best quality illegals. This same argument again. The fact that some people will get through any fence does not invalidate the idea of a fence. Most will not get through.

[clomoll]

is not due to a lack of people to work them. It is due to a lack of demand for products that are more expensive, but not appreciably better than products made elsewhere.

[buIf6yoW]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's a straw man and not worthy of discussion. Saying they are just "racists" is wrong. Many people who are minorities themselves have problems with illegal immigration. Did you ever think about that, but I guess it's just evil whitey keeping the brown people down. I didn't say that all people are this way. However, a significant number of the anti-immigrant group are doing so due to racist tendencies. You spent time in Texas, you can't tell me this isn't the case... most of the anti-immigrant folks that I know personally are somewhat or fully anti-hispanic racist. The strength of the political movement is built on the ease of political racism.


So the US in the 19th century wasn't concerned about the outside world at all? I think this is a very weak argument.

Look it up. When were immigration controls established in the first place and why did the policy change? I'll hint that it had something to do with Margaret Sanger and limiting the number of evil brown people from the US.


You probably don't know US policy in the 19th century very well... the US was very self-involved prior to WWII, and had very little interest in the outside world. Particularly around the time of WWI, there was quite substantial sentiment to just ostrich up and not get involved in the outside world. This sentiment meshes easily with the racist politics and made it possible to pass anti-immigration policies.

I'm not sure it is possible to do both, unless you believe it's ok under a democratic president and not ok under a republican.
That makes no sense. You can be against amnesty and for legal path to immigration that's reasonable. I am.


I would support making it easier to come over, but it is necessary for the US to keep the restrictions they had on people entering the country. Your suggestions just seem like amnesty to me.
I support making a legal path to immigration, over here or over there. I think it's impractical to tell everyone over here to go home and then allow a similar number to come over... the ones who want to come are here, so let's make it possible for them to come over legally.

The proposal I'd support:

• Allow employers to list jobs at the border
• Conduct entrance interviews (by USCIS) on potential applicants
• Allow those that pass minimum qualification levels to enter on a 30 day visa
• If they are able to find work within the 30 day timeframe, allow them to stay on a rolling 1 year work visa which must be re-applied for each year with employer signoff
• Minimize costs for these visas, on the order of $50 each
• Allow those here already to apply for 1 year visa same as anyone else
• Visa allows travel between home country and US, either unlimited or reasonably limited

That's pretty much it... The number would not be limited at all for this type of visa, and would include a SSN (or whatever the equivalent is for immigrants) to allow the employer to pay taxes on the. FICA and Medicare taxes wouldn't apply for this type of visa, as they wouldn't be eligible for these services, but instead a tax to cover the program that would run ~80% of the level of FICA/Medicare taxes. That would pay for the program and then some... and you could add the other 20% on in taxes to support FICA anyway, if the lessening of the tax was a problem politically. To limit the effect on local economies, you could limit the number of jobs permitted to be posted on a local basis, say to locations with low unemployment, and/or if it's not an agriculture or service job you could require the job to be posted for at least two weeks or a month locally before it was permitted to be filled with this type of visa.

That's not an amnesty plan, it's an economically sound plan for allowing immigration based on need that fills jobs as they appear but restricts it to qualified applicants who are applying for legitimate jobs.

[Riprincattiva]

Originally posted by Oerdin
5 myths of anti-immigration talk

By Andres Oppenheimer
Sunday, January 20, 2008

Let's debunk the biggest myths of the anti-immigration movement that has swept this country and may still have an impact on the 2008 presidential race: that it is not anti-Hispanic, that it doesn't oppose legal immigration and that it's against only "illegal" immigration.

Most U.S. Republican presidential hopefuls -- with the exception of Sen. John McCain -- and cable television anti-immigration crusaders on CNN and Fox News are deceiving the public with their claim that they are only against "illegal" immigration. Oh boy!

• Myth No. 1: "We are only against illegal immigration. Undocumented immigrants should get in line for visas." That's deceptive because you can't demand that people get into line when, for the most part, there is no line to get into.

While the U.S. labor market is demanding 1.5 million mostly low-skilled immigrants a year -- and will demand many more in coming years, as the U.S. population becomes increasingly educated -- the current immigration system allows into the U.S. an average of 1 million legal immigrants a year and most of them are already here.

"There is a huge mismatch between what the U.S. labor market needs and the supply of immigration visas," says Frank Sharry, head of the National Immigration Forum, which advocates both secure borders and a path to legal residence for many of the 12 million-plus undocumented immigrants in the United States.

On top of that, most anti-immigration groups want to reduce legal immigration. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a favorite of radio and cable television Hispanic immigrant-bashing news shows, wants to reduce legal immigration from the current 1 million a year to about 300,000, with a 20-year cooling-off period. As someone who favors a return to replacement rate immigration, I do not see any republican candidate on the state supporting that. They are not "anti-immigrant".

• Myth No. 2: "Anti-immigration advocates are not anti-Hispanic." Maybe many aren't but when was the last time you heard anti-immigration Republican hopefuls or cable television talk show hosts lashing out against illegal immigrants from Canada?

In addition, the escalating immigration hysteria has created an ugly environment that affects all Hispanics -- both legal and undocumented -- in many parts of the country, as recent studies by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have shown.

"We are seeing more discrimination and harassment," says Michele Waslin, of the Immigration Policy Center. "Anybody who is Hispanic-looking or has an Hispanic last name is being treated as an undocumented immigrant." Immigration, both lawful and unlawful has been dominated by Mexican nationals(hence hispanics) for 40 years. Is any desire to shift away from that situation anti-hispanic? If so then this point is weasel worded enough to be correct, but it also applies to every candidate.

• Myth No. 3: "We are a nation of laws, and the law says you have to enter the country legally." Yes, but we are also a nation of immigrants. And, by the way, nearly half of all undocumented immigrants enter the country legally, and overstay their visas. What point is he trying to make? Every Nation on Earth is a nation of immigrants.


• Myth No. 4: "Building a border fence will solve the problem." Wrong. As long as the per capita income in the United States is five times bigger than that of Mexico, and as long as U.S. labor market demands millions of low-skilled jobs that Americans won't fill, people will jump over the fence, dig tunnels under it or come through Canada. Why oppose a fence if it won't work? Isn't it just practically a jobs program for illegals? While building a fence alone won't do the job, not being able to build a fence means you won't get all that far with solving any problem.


• Myth No. 5: Those of us who criticize anti-immigration groups are "amnesty" and "open borders" supporters. Baloney. Many support both border protection and an earned path to legalization for millions of undocumented workers who pay taxes and are willing to learn English. There are already paths to citizenship for such people. Giving them another special path is amnesty.


The only way to solve the current immigration crisis will be to legalize undocumented workers who have paid their dues and to increase economic integration with Mexico and the rest of Latin America in order to reduce poverty and emigration pressures south of the border. Ahahahaha. More free trade, which by the way places South America in a losing fight against communist china, isn't going to solve a damned thing.

The rest is, for the most part, populist demagoguery.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_548344.html If anything, I want more populist demagoguery.

[Immusaatmonna]

Andrés Oppenheimer is a very very simple minded journalist, especially when he talks about economy.


He is actually a pro republicans right winger, only in the issue of immigration he is against Bush.

[SallyIsNice5]

You spent time in Texas, you can't tell me this isn't the case... most of the anti-immigrant folks that I know personally are somewhat or fully anti-hispanic racist. The strength of the political movement is built on the ease of political racism. I was there, and what I saw is that there was considerable suspicion about the benefits of immigration from everyone, not just the white folks. Plenty of hispanics who are bona fide American citizens have a problem with the ones who skirt the system.

Think of it this way, they are the ones who suffer most of the problems of illegal immigration because it happens in their backyard.

You probably don't know US policy in the 19th century very well... the US was very self-involved prior to WWII, and had very little interest in the outside world. Considering I'm a history grad you might want to rethink that assumption.

At the time, they had the most open immigration system in the world. That's the flip side of the percieved isolationism, they would take anyone who was fleeing troubles and wars in their homelands.

Particularly around the time of WWI, there was quite substantial sentiment to just ostrich up and not get involved in the outside world. This sentiment meshes easily with the racist politics and made it possible to pass anti-immigration policies. Except for the fact that it wasn't until after the first world war, that the US began to enact restrictive immigration laws.

Wilson really changed things. The whole policy of intervention in the affairs of the world is Wilson's policy, and to some extent is still being carried out today.

As for your proposal, I like the idea of the employer being able to conduct interviews with those from other countries without running afoul of the current immigration restrictions. Right now, as it stands someone who goes to the US to take an interview would be breaking the law if they came there on a visitor's visa.

Visa allows travel between home country and US, either unlimited or reasonably limited No, not unlimited, perhaps after a year continuous residence in the US. This is an important restriction.

That's not an amnesty plan, it's an economically sound plan for allowing immigration based on need that fills jobs as they appear but restricts it to qualified applicants who are applying for legitimate jobs. I owe you an apology then. You are taking the regulation about those who enter the US seriously. Thanks for the plan, overall I think it has considerable merit.

[TeftyJokip]

Shitty articles aren't a good basis for discussion.

[Scukonah]

Originally posted by Ming


Not a bad plan... but to make it work, we would have to really step up enforcement. We would have to shut down businesses that used illegals (to get companies to actually play by the rules for a change)

We would also have to keep an eye open for companies that abused the system by offering workers the chance to "qualify" but then took most of their salary back as a kick back to stay in America.

There are indeed too many low skilled jobs that need to be filled and in most cases, immigrants are the only ones that will do them.

However, maybe if we revised the entire welfare system, that wouldn't be the case The first wouldn't be a big issue. The reason for the amount of illegal immigration we have now is it's too hard to be legal, so there's a black market like any other difficult or impossible to obtain good. Make a reasonably easy legal path to/for these workers, and the illegal immigrant trade (which is what it is, a trade) will basically go away. You probably could cut back enforcement, or leave it the same, and let the enforcers focus on the bad violators - like your next paragraph.