MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Skating at Olbrich
Friday, December 19, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 26.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

The Immigration Debate

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Huckleby » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:01 pm

wack wack wrote: They're not geared toward organizing and processing immigrants for a better America, they're meant to cause difficulty and pain on an individual basis because that's what makes conservatives feel good.


Well, what you say is about 23.7% of the motivation. The rest is a desire to delay and discourage the new hispanics from voting.

My point is that these rules can be revisited and changed. And the politics will favor this change, very quickly, very decisively. I'd say in just a year, when large numbers of hispanics are unable to afford citizenship, the Repubs will again have to cave-in to pressure, or they remain on the hispanic shit list.

I'm more in agreement than disagreement with you. The Dems should drive a hard bargain in negotiations. My point is that any concessions that Dems have to make in the end will be ephemeral.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7203
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby rabble » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:10 pm

I can go along with that. As long as the Dems make damn sure everybody knows who wanted the dehumanizing parts in the mix, it's another win the battle/lose the war for the Republicans.

It sucks, but it's a step.
rabble
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6529
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Detritus » Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:36 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:From a libertarian perspective, "border control" is a non-starter - stopping someone from crossing an arbitrary line in space using force is not acceptable behavior.

I completely agree. Plus, we already have an insanely militarized border regime that, coupled with the War on Drugs, has had catastrophic results on both sides of the border. Both policies need to be eradicated.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby The One » Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:50 pm

I really can not support the argument that a path to citizenship would be a boost to the economy. Do I support kicking all of the illegals out, absolutely not. Immigrant workers are some of the most hard working people I have ever seen and hard work should be rewarded. My wife is an immigrant, so I know how much of a pain it is to legally immigrate. For those have been here for many years, I do say welcome and here is a way to get legal.

My fear is what was stated before. I don't believe, with the ACA and the poor state of our social programs, we can take on a huge jump in legalizing millions all at once. Now that Obama is pushing raising the minimum wage to $9/hour, I fear that the immigrants who are working hard will be laid off in mass.

When I immigrated my wife over, we had to submit documents that showed that we wouldn't be a tax on society. In order to do that, we had to be 150% above the poverty line. If there is a path to citizenship, I believe that the 150% above the poverty line needs to stay in place.
The One
Senior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Huckleby » Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:55 pm

The One wrote: I don't believe, with the ACA and the poor state of our social programs, we can take on a huge jump in legalizing millions all at once

OK, I see that side of the argument. But you also have to weigh the downside of your alternative. Having 10 million people live without government services poses burdens and problems. And of course a growing percentage of them are U.S. citizens anyway.
People on the right have been complaining bitterly about minorities being a drain on social services for at least 50 years prior to the ACA. So the perception will never, ever change.

If your proposal were enacted and somehow retained support, it would create a permanently disenfranchised class, even if you had more generous intentions. (But of course it would never actually play out, the Republican party would shrink to irrelevance first.)
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7203
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby pjbogart » Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:12 pm

Huckleby wrote:OK, I see that side of the argument. But you also have to weigh the downside of your alternative. Having 10 million people live without government services poses burdens and problems.


Anyone who's ever worked in a retail environment, at least on the management side, knows what "first of the month" means. Yeah, it's a real run on grocery stores and liquor stores, but it also affects everything from Radio Shack to Gumby's. I think employees tend to be myopic as to the "first of the month," what it means for them is more work with no extra pay, but what it means for businesses is a cash infusion, and a couple percentage points off your labor for the week (and eventually, the period).

First of the monthers aren't just welfare recipients, though. They're government workers, the unemployed, social security recipients and a fair number of privately employed individuals who also get paid on the first of the month. In a retail setting, the first of the month is a cash cow, oftentimes the cash cow that you need to make your numbers for the rest of the month.

And that's how economies work. You can call it "wealth redistribution" if you want, but what it really means is that everyone seems to have a little cash in their pocket, even those people who haven't lifted a finger to earn it. If you have money in your pocket, I have to make sure I've got a few extra people on my staff. Those are jobs, and those people also spend money. It's an economic circle, and you don't have to be a citizen to participate.

Think of it this way, "The One". If you owned a local Milio's franchise and were looking to sell as many sandwiches as you could, for as high a price as you could, wouldn't you rather that everyone in Madison could afford a Milio's sandwich? Tax cuts for millionaires does you no good, because if a millionaire hankered for a Milio's sandwich, he would buy one. He's not going to buy more of them just because he got a tax cut. But if everyone in the neighborhood had more money, including those who didn't even earn the money, you'd sell more sandwiches. Right?

Essentially, that's why Republicans like to talk tough about immigration and entitlement programs, but they never actually do anything about it. They get their money from the corporations, and US Cellular has no interest in deporting 10 million Hispanics. Nor does Wal-Mart, McDonald's or Charter Communications. Unemployed people still buy food, don't they? If you took $10 million out of unemployment compensation and gave it to millionaires, would they buy an extra $10 million worth of groceries? Of course they wouldn't.

So for all of your anger and frustration directed at the non-producers and the illegal immigrants, you don't have many allies. Certainly not the corporations who sell to those people. Nor the landlords who rent to them. Nor the employers who give them low-paying jobs. Who's fighting for you?

Republicans want your vote, but they're not so interested in your ideas. They tell you what you want to hear... and then sit on their hands.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby The One » Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:21 am

pjbogart: I have no anger towards group. I get your points and they are very valid. Businesses can't last without customers and that's the point that I too am trying to make, but in a different way.

If we saturate those programs with millions of new people, something has to change in order to maintain the amount of those first of the month checks and of course we know what that involves. Cuts or taxes. If it's cuts, then the amount of money is lower and the businesses that benefit from those first month spenders will lose money as well. If we tax, chances are good that the sandwich price will go up and the rent will increase and the person who gets the check won't have that much to spend afterwards.

I hate this part, but it's a reality that we have to live with. If those who are getting paid little, those who are here illegally, now have to get paid minimum wage, either the price will go up on the sandwich or the guy making it will be let go because the owner just can't afford it. Why I hate saying that is because I think the people of the U.S. have been benefiting greatly from what I see as slave labor. People are getting paid crap for back breaking work and that is what is keeping the prices low on produce and other items. It's sad, but that's the way it is right now. I wish people didn't take advantage of the desperation of others in order to make extra dollars. I wish they would hire those who can legally work and take the hit, rather then on slave labor.
The One
Senior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Huckleby » Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:45 pm

The One wrote:People are getting paid crap for back breaking work and that is what is keeping the prices low on produce and other items. It's sad, but that's the way it is right now. I wish people didn't take advantage of the desperation of others in order to make extra dollars. I wish they would hire those who can legally work and take the hit, rather then on slave labor.


I have no idea what you want our government policy to be, on immigration or anything else.

Do you support stronger unions to lift wages? Do you support President Obama's call to raise the minimum wage?

I'm sensing crocodile tears here. You are against immigrants getting legal status, which would force employers to pay higher wages for ALL workers. Yet you wish people didn't have to work so hard for so little money. Oh, and you also express concern for the sandwich store owner who may go out of business if he pays a fair wage.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7203
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Huckleby » Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:55 pm

The administration's early draft of an immigration proposal were leaked to the press last weekend. Roughly, it would force undocumented immigrants to pay fines before they were eligible for a temporary visa. Then in about 8 years they could apply for a green card. After that, they can apply for citizenship.

To me, this sounds like the worst possible deal that the Democrats could be stuck with. I am the king of compromise, I never see a half-loaf that doesn't look delicious. I believe progress takes a long time, and you have to keep at it for the long haul. But negotiating does not begin by accepting a terrible deal.

Marco Rubio immediately jumped on this proposal and criticized it as unacceptable. The Republicans are going to call ANYTHING Obama suggests amnesty, unacceptable. So why don't the Dems demand a two year path to full citizenship?

It seems that the conservatives in this thread are most concerned about delaying indefinitely benefits to immigrants. Well, that's not going to happen if immigration reform is signed, so probably most conservatives are against ANY deal.

Obama should forget about passing immigration that the House of Representatives will approve of. Most of the the right wing is not ready for a deal. Leave them to work it out on their side. Let them block immigration reform if that is their choice.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7203
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby The One » Mon Feb 18, 2013 4:22 pm

Huckleby wrote:I have no idea what you want our government policy to be, on immigration or anything else.

Do you support stronger unions to lift wages? Do you support President Obama's call to raise the minimum wage?

I'm sensing crocodile tears here. You are against immigrants getting legal status, which would force employers to pay higher wages for ALL workers. Yet you wish people didn't have to work so hard for so little money. Oh, and you also express concern for the sandwich store owner who may go out of business if he pays a fair wage.


It's not crocodile tears by any means and I'm sorry if it comes off that way. This is what I would like as far as government policy.

1. Secure the border and enforcement. A lot of illegals walk across the border, but from what I've read in the past the majority cross legally and overstay. Quit this local law enforcement can't talk to ICE bullshit and, if arrested, the illegal is deported.

2. Current illegals with no criminal record has a chance for citizenship, but over a very long time. We can not overload the already overloaded system. It took my wife a little under a year to just cross the border to live with me because the system is so overloaded. Unless we're looking to dramatically increase the U.S.C.I.S. budget to hire many more workers, this thing is going to stall out before it gets started.

3. Major cuts in government spending. If we're going to overload the USCIS and offer millions the opportunity get on government programs, we need to make major cuts to compensate. If my produce prices go up, so be it. But I'm not going to pay more in taxes to compensate the overload.

4. Other countries support. If America is going to be a major money maker for countries like Mexico, El Salvador, and so on then the U.S. should get compensated for it. If that involves taxing any wired money to those countries or whatever. The fact that 21% of Mexico's GDP is their people sending money back is crazy and we should get a cut of it.

5. Do not increase minimum wage. It will only hurt businesses and won't even come close to making a "living wage" for anybody making that amount. As far as unions for immigrants go, sure, that's fine by me.
The One
Senior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby pjbogart » Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:01 pm

Don't raise the minimum wage because even if you did it wouldn't be enough to live on? Huh? And it will only hurt business owners to pay fair wages to their employees? Huh?
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby ArturoBandini » Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:06 pm

pjbogart wrote:Don't raise the minimum wage because even if you did it wouldn't be enough to live on? Huh? And it will only hurt business owners to pay fair wages to their employees? Huh?

Is there a $9 Minimum Wage thread already? I like to talk about Minimum Wage, but MW and immigration are separate issues, in my opinion.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby Huckleby » Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:57 pm

The One wrote: 1. Secure the border and enforcement. A lot of illegals walk across the border, but from what I've read in the past the majority cross legally and overstay. Quit this local law enforcement can't talk to ICE bullshit and, if arrested, the illegal is deported.

OK, consider it done. You can have all the spending you want on securing the border. But since "securing the border" is impossible, you can not expect guaranteed results as part of a deal.

When Israel "controlled" the border between Gaza and Egypt, they were unable to stop smuggling. And that was a short stretch in wide-open, desert terrain. Determined people will build tunnels, or devise other clever means to smuggle people. (They aren't much doing it now because the Mexican economy is growing much faster than the U.S. economy, and I'm not sure that will change any decade soon. There are more Mexicans leaving the country than entering.)

You will never, ever physically stop people from entering the country. Most will always come on planes, trains and automobiles under legal visas. In addition to a long southern border, we have two coastlines. If the relative economies of Mexico and the U.S. ever change such that smuggling become lucrative, the smuggling will resume.

"Securing the border" is folly. But if more wasted spending on border enforcement is the price of a deal, OK.

(P.S. If you really think illegal immigration is a great threat, support a National ID card. That might actually work.)

The One wrote: Current illegals with no criminal record has a chance for citizenship, but over a very long time.

President Obama's proposal is for a very long time. Two years for people who came here as adults, eight years for older people. If this is unacceptable to you, than there won't be a deal that you can support.

The One wrote: Major cuts in government spending. If we're going to overload the USCIS and offer millions the opportunity get on government programs, we need to make major cuts to compensate
You just demanded significant new spending on border enforcement.
I don't think your notion of demanding spending cuts is realistic. Republicans are holding a very weak hand.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7203
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby The One » Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:35 am

Huckleby wrote:OK, consider it done. You can have all the spending you want on securing the border. But since "securing the border" is impossible, you can not expect guaranteed results as part of a deal.

"Securing the border" is folly. But if more wasted spending on border enforcement is the price of a deal, OK.

Let me take a page from Obama's playbook on gun control and say just because we can't stop all of the people from crossing the border, doesn't mean we shouldn't make the border more secure. If we can stop even a few by making improvements, then I think it's worth it.

Huckleby wrote:(P.S. If you really think illegal immigration is a great threat, support a National ID card. That might actually work.)

For it. However, I'm sure ACLU and other privacy groups will flip out.

Huckleby wrote:President Obama's proposal is for a very long time. Two years for people who came here as adults, eight years for older people. If this is unacceptable to you, than there won't be a deal that you can support.

First off it should be 2 years for who came here as adults and 8 years for older people. On it's face, it looks fine, but there are a few more details I would like to see, such as how one proves the amount of time they have been here or did they just cross.

Huckleby wrote:You just demanded significant new spending on border enforcement. I don't think your notion of demanding spending cuts is realistic. Republicans are holding a very weak hand.

Then you propose a tax increase, correct? Immigration reform is going to come with a huge bill. How do we fund it?
The One
Senior Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: The Immigration Debate

Postby pjbogart » Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:31 am

The One wrote:Then you propose a tax increase, correct? Immigration reform is going to come with a huge bill. How do we fund it?


What huge bill is that? Are you operating under the Rush Limbaugh theory that all undocumented immigrants are shiftless, lazy sponges who stand around in emergency rooms and welfare offices?

I guess it's impossible to know the exact number, but many undocumented immigrants are probably working for dishonest bosses who like to pay cash and avoid paying taxes, both for themselves and their workers. One of my biggest gripes is that Republicans seem eager to arrest and deport the immigrants, but not so eager to arrest and charge the business owners with tax evasion.

It seems like increasing the number of tax payers is a net positive.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar