Immigration Protest Turns Violent in LA
After police tried to break up the immigrant protest Monday night, they were showered with rocks and bottles,
REUTERS VIDEO HERE
There is not much mention about this violent finish to the immigrant protests in any of the press reports today... if any!
The LA Times lead with:
Immigrants Demonstrate Peaceful Power
They seemed to have missed that kerfuffle in their reports on the protest this morning.
Let's face it. The protests were all about amnesty for illegal aliens.
Thousands of demonstrators march along Wilshire Boulevard in downtown Los Angeles May 1, 2006, as part of what is being billed as 'A Day Without Immigrants,' a nationwide protest staged by immigrant rights advocates to protest proposed legislation to reform U.S. immigration law. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)
One protester commented:
Monday's protests resembled the March 25 demonstration in many ways, but seemed more energetic and boisterous. "Today we feel victorious," Alejandra Arcasi, a 40-year-old naturalized citizen from Peru, said as she marched toward City Hall. "But there is still a lot more to do."More Che...
A demonstrator takes part in an immigration protest in downtown Los Angeles, Monday, May 1, 2006. Marching in waves of red, white and blue, chanting 'USA, USA' and singing the national anthem in English, illegal immigrants and supporters rallied by the thousands as part of a nationwide work and shopping boycott designed to demonstrate economic power. (AP Photo/Oscar Hidalgo)
South of the US border, the roads were blocked during demonstrations for a "Day Without the Gringo". There was also vandalism reported on at least one US owned bank.
Michelle Malkin has the pictures that you won't see splashed on the front pages this morning.
Pajamas Media has a great roundup of the protests on Monday. More Here and Here.
California Conservative has Rep. Boenher's (R-OH) smackdown of Minority Leader Pelosi and her democratic colleagues.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 5/02/2006 03:48:00 AM
32 Comments:
Don't forget about the fun we had in San Francisco...
Viva Mexico!
To tell you the truth, I'm shocked by the numbers of illegal immigrants in the US. We must do something, and something quick to start getting these people out of the US. They are a time bomb ticking, with loyalty to another country, and apparently separatist and communist movements embedded within them.
I'm far more concerned with stopping the inflow than with evicting the current illegal alien population. You don't clean up the mess until after you stop the leak.
Why don't they head back to Mexico and use the same energy they are using here in the USA and change their messed up, corrupt land?
As if the USA owed them something. Also I always thought that you don't have a voice until you are a citizen and for the catholic church if it want's to get in to politics it must start paying taxes. It's funny they speak of wanting to amesty and to become citizens but they wave Mexican flags and don't speak English. I am very confused.
Perhaps we should try a "reverse boycott" to demonstrate the impact that illegal immigrants have on our economy.
For one day - no food stamps, education, healthcare, etc. etc. without proof of citizenship or legal immigrant status.
Of course this would be hurtful, hateful and lots of other "fuls" and would immediately be denounced as racist....
Every country, including Mexico, has some sort of immigration laws. Why is America considered to be the only country who is not allowed to have and enforce these laws? WTF?!?
As if the USA owed them something.
Sometimes you give something even when you don't owe it. It's called "charity".
Also I always thought that you don't have a voice until you are a citizen
That's an interesting concept - freedom of speech only if you're a citizen.
Why don't they head back to Mexico and use the same energy they are using here in the USA and change their messed up, corrupt land?
It would be great if they could do this, but they likely have little power in Mexico for the same reason they have little power here -- they are poor. Once upon a time, the US opened itself up to the victims of oppression or hardship. Sometimes, we didn't. Looks like we're moving in that direction again.
How many people do you suggest we open ourselves up to, Dave? We have 300,000,000 people already here with another 100 to 150,000,000 south of the border from several different countries ready to come in. Who will pay for all this? Do we have unlimited resources?
And, of course, if you give 20,000,000 people amnesty, they are the anchor people, who will claim 3-5 people as family, and this quickly becomes 50,000,000. It must be stopped, reversed, and some kind of sense be made of all this. We have no earthly idea who is in our country, and for what reason. This is ridiculous. And deadly.
Dave, after what happened in NYC on 9/11/01 I would think you above all would want to know who is entering the country and why they are here. And if we give amnesty to all illegal aliens, how are we to determine who is a terrorist, or who is in a terrorist cell. I would assume CAIR's entry into the illegal alien mess is not in support of Mexicans, but I suspect something more sinister.
I don't know, I'm pissed about this entire mess, greedy Republicans wanting cheap labor, and power hungry Democrats wanting cheap votes. A pox upon both their houses!
The best thing to do is to get panicked, probably. Then, try not to think to much.
Chickens are coming back to roost..and it is so entertaining to watch...basically this is what happens when you go around the world raping and pilaging other peoples lands and sticking your flag on it or stealing their resources as if you are entitled to them... this is what happens when you are too spoiled to take lowly jobs...somebody has to do them...this is what happens when you are too vain to have more than 2 children...the minority numbers grow...basically this is what happens when you have a government that has perpetrated great evils all over the world ...eventually...someday it all comes back to bite you...quite frankly this is just the begining and I am quite happy to sit back and watch as america implodes from within...
Chickens are coming back to roost..and it is so entertaining to watch...basically this is what happens when you go around the world raping and pilaging other peoples lands and sticking your flag on it or stealing their resources as if you are entitled to them...
So, your hands are clean from all this guilt, right?
this is what happens when you are too spoiled to take lowly jobs...somebody has to do them...
It could be you--but are you too spoiled to do it? Or too good to do manual labor?
this is what happens when you are too vain to have more than 2 children...the minority numbers grow...
So, is this why countries where the birthright is so high are paradises?
basically this is what happens when you have a government that has perpetrated great evils all over the world ...
Yadda yadda yadda-- AmeriKKKA the bad guys (tm). Let us know when your echo chamber becomes filled with brains.
How many people do you suggest we open ourselves up to, Dave? We have 300,000,000 people already here with another 100 to 150,000,000 south of the border from several different countries ready to come in. Who will pay for all this? Do we have unlimited resources?
I don't know. As many as we have jobs for? I'm not suggesting we should just let them all in. I just don't think looking at immigration in terms of what we "owe" people or what we "owe" the regime that rules the country they come from is the right framework.
I'm not an immigration expert, but here's a thought: Start with much more vigorous enforcement of the minimum wage. That would reduce the demand for illegal immigrants. Then allow in the number that are needed to fill the open jobs that Americans still aren't "willing to do" when they're making a real wage.
Anyway, I just came up with that two minutes ago so I'm sure there are practical problems with it.
Dave, after what happened in NYC on 9/11/01 I would think you above all would want to know who is entering the country and why they are here.
How many of the 9/11 hijackers were illegal immigrants? How many of them came to the US across the Mexican border?
I would not mind seeing better border controls on both borders, but it should be coupled with a more sensible immigration policy, and a policy that addresses the economic conditions that make illegal immigration so common. The racist undertones to much of the anti-immigration rhetoric right now really puts me off. I also don't think the issues of terrorism and border security are as related as a lot of people seem to think. As long as we have a huge unguarded border with Canada, and planes flying into our largest cities from foreign countries on a daily basis, we are going to be somewhat vulnerable.
Dave, I don't know the exact number that were illegal immigrants, but I do know that several were here illegally, so I guess that made them illegal aliens.
But no one wants to address the cost of all this. How much will it cost when 20 million or more people are given amnesty? Does anyone know, does anyone care?
...this is what happens when you go around the world raping and pilaging other peoples lands...
Bull crap, we give more money away than all the rest, so you're an idiot for saying that. And if we wanted to steal Iraq's oil, why wouldn't we? We could, but no, we pay $75 a barrel for it. What a bargain!
...this is what happens when you are too spoiled to take lowly jobs...
Bullshit, I see whites and blacks working right alongside Mexicans. Don't give me that bull!
...this is what happens when you are too vain to have more than 2 children....
Bullshit, again, I have three children myself, all trained shooters and experienced hunters.
...basically this is what happens when you have a government that has perpetuated great evils all over the world....
No, this is what happens when you have been nice to the downtrodden, and have not shot and killed them as they crossed a friendly border. However, if the people who cross the border decide to listen to the kind of propaganda you just got through vomiting, then it can go the other way for them, and they can be kicked out.
Dave, I don't know the exact number that were illegal immigrants, but I do know that several were here illegally, so I guess that made them illegal aliens.
Right, but they entered the country legally and then the system lost track of them, right? I don't see how better border enforcement or an amnesty program would make the occurence of such things more or less likely.
I have also seen it written that 5% of our armed forces is comprised of illegal immigrants. If you add the children of illegal immigrants to those numbers, it would be even higher. As you consider the security implications of deporting all illegals, you should look into those numbers as well.
But no one wants to address the cost of all this. How much will it cost when 20 million or more people are given amnesty? Does anyone know, does anyone care?
Estimates are that there are only ~11 million illegal immigrants in this country, I thought.
Anyway, I have seen some estimates on the cost of amnesty programs from FAIR, but I don't necessarily trust them. You would also want to consider how much those people would contribute if they were paid a minimum wage and had to contribute payroll taxes, etc.
What about the impact on the economy when illegal aliens become legal citizens and they demand better wages? We will no longer have cheap labor, and the whole scope of the issue will change. How about we change the welfare system to mandate that it is necessary to work to remain on government assistance, albeit, with reducing amounts per year to allow people to get on track financially. On a separate note, Why don't we just let the downtrodden decide in which house they want to live, and just move them in with the residents that already live there. I mean, if the house is big enough, and there's enough food in the refrigerator, why not? No matter that the house belongs to someone else that worked for it, paid for it, maintains it, and hopes to pass it down to their children in good repair. Let's just move everyone in, they deserve it!!! Because these people in other countries are suffering, and everyone knows that no one in America is suffers. I mean, we all have Paris Hilton's wealth. Don't we?
I have also seen it written that 5% of our armed forces is comprised of illegal immigrants.
anonymous, I personally don't think that it is 5% of our armed forces regardless of where you read it. As the Military has very strict citizenship requirments( I.E. birth certificate, proof of naturalazation or RESIDENT ALIEN STATUS, aka green card). We also do through background checks on all applicants.
Also do me a personal favor and stop hiding behind the anonymous tag its annoying and childish and really unbecoming of someone with an identity
Also do me a personal favor and stop hiding behind the anonymous tag its annoying and childish and really unbecoming of someone with an identity
Um, S Humphrey is essentially an anonmyous tag as well. If I had such a common last name I would post with it as well.
I don't know if the armed forces number is right, but I think it's something templar knight should look into.
Dave, the numbers would be smaller than 1%, but I don't care if they are 10%, it will not change my mind that all people who broke the law and came here ILLEGALLY, and I'm talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not legal immigrants, should and must be sent home.
Perhaps some of you are old enough to remember this exact same thing took place under Reagan in 1987, I believe. The amnesty and employer sanctions didn't work then, they will not work now, they will never work as long as these people know they can break the law and continue to come.
AN AMNESTY WILL ENCOURAGE MORE AND MORE ILLEGAL ALIENS TO COME HERE ILLEGALLY. When it didn't work the first time, why in the world would you want to do the same exact thing again? Greedy Republicans and power hungry Democrats are the answer. They care nothing about the United States. Makes. Me. Sick.
Perhaps some of you are old enough to remember this exact same thing took place under Reagan in 1987, I believe. The amnesty and employer sanctions didn't work then, they will not work now, they will never work as long as these people know they can break the law and continue to come.
What was the cost to the country then? That might help to answer the question you keep asking.
Templar, I am not proposing amnesty. But there are other potential policies besides that and arresting/deporting them all and putting up a big fence.
One Man's Opinion On Immigration,(not mine) Part 1
An estimated 500,000 to 2 million people, untold numbers of them here illegally, took to the streets of Los Angeles to protest strict immigration enforcement and demand blanket amnesty for border violators, visa overstayers, deportation fugitives, immigration document fraud artists and other lawbreakers. Mexican flags and signs advocating ethnic separatism and supremacy filled the landscape.
One of the largest, boldest banners visible from aerial shots of the rally read: "THIS IS STOLEN LAND." Others blared: "CHICANO POWER" and "BROWN IS BEAUTIFUL." (Can you imagine the uproar if someone had come to the rally holding up a sign reading "WHITE IS BEAUTIFUL"?) Students walked out of classrooms all across Southern California chanting, "Latinos, stand up!" Young people raised their fists in defiance, clothed in T-shirts bearing radical leftist guerrilla Che Guevara's face and Aztlan emblems.
Aztlan is a long-held notion among Mexico's intellectual elite and political class, which asserts that the American Southwest rightly belongs to Mexico. Advocates believe the reclamation (or reconquista) of Aztlan will occur through sheer demographic force. If the rallies across the country are any indication, reconquista is already complete.
Demonstrators gleefully defaced posters of President Bush and urged supporters to "Stop the Nazis!" Los Angeles talk-show host Tammy Bruce reported that protesters burned American flags and waved placards of the North American continent with America crossed out.
Bet you didn't see that on television. Thugs with masked faces flashed gang signs on the steps of L.A.'s City Haillions of illegal immigrants are marching in America's streets and boycotting jobs, schools and merchants. Their explicit purpose is to blackmail our government into granting rights to which they are not entitled.
These activities demonstrate two realities: First, life is good in this country and the opportunities for economic advancement are extraordinary for those willing to work hard.
Second, life is typically not so good in Mexico and the other Latin American nations from which these illegal aliens principally come. Unfortunately, if present political, economic and social trends continue south of our border, there will likely be many more immigrants coming here unlawfully in search of better lives, and to flee increasingly hard ones in their own countries.
In fact, a prospective surge in illegal immigration - perhaps coupled with a further radicalization of those already in this country - are just some of the reasons why these worrisome trends should command far greater attention from American policy-makers and citizens alike. Despite the serious and almost-without-exception adverse implications of events throughout Central and South America for our strategic, trade and security interests, however, neither the Bush Administration nor either party in Congress is doing much to address them.
The debate over illegal immigration has managed to conflate two separate issues -- American immigrant citizenship status (and related requirements) on the one hand, and the economic consequences of having limited access to unskilled workers in the domestic labor pool. The two issues are not one and the same. Thus, resolving the complex choices associated with each will be easier when they are treated differently.
On the one hand, US immigrant citizenship policy as modified in 1986 by the Immigration Reform and Control Act -- which attempted to address seasonal temporary workers -- has been an abysmal failure. The act made it unlawful to knowingly hire an undocumented worker and provided for a one-year amnesty for illegal aliens who had already worked and lived in the U.S. since January 1982. Although at the time there were less than 3 million illegal aliens in the U.S., the grant of amnesty sent a signal to the world that the U.S. would no longer be serious about its border. Combined with a phasing out of employer sanctions, predictably the number of illegals has swelled nearly 4 times to more than 11 million people (many of whom assume that a new amnesty is waiting just around the corner).
Today it is vital that we adopt a policy that separates those aliens seeking permanent status from those only interested in temporary employment opportunities. Unfortunately, much of the present debate treats the groups as if they are one and the same. By failing to make this distinction, we risk going forward with an updated-but-incoherent program.
Economic Refugees, Labor Flexibility
First and foremost, policymakers must recognize that there are significant economic consequences to allowing geographical barriers to determine wages -- particularly in the context of low-skilled workers. Every American household pays an arbitrarily (and therefore wasteful) higher price for the goods and services that are provided when they are denied the benefit of competition simply because of where they live. Although often mentioned in the context of goods, the principle is no less true of labor costs. A rational temporary worker plan recognizes that we exist in a global economy that requires labor flexibility and allows honest workers interested in coming to America to provide for their families while respecting our laws.
Let's look at it from the low- or unskilled-laborer's perspective: Typically these workers are economic refugees plagued by the corrupt and chaotic economic regimes and attendant policies of Mexico or other countries in Latin America. The problems in these countries are not America's fault. Arguably, many of these workers would likely challenge their own governments if they didn't have America as a viable outlet. Nevertheless, it is in our economic interest to allow them to enter our labor force if not but to help maintain our own economic vitality.
To be sure, the presence of these workers has the effect of deflating salaries among unskilled or low-skilled laborers, but this consequence is offset by the benefit of increasing the standard of living for Americans which occurs because the lower priced goods and services they provide are made more readily available than they would be otherwise. Unless this process is only good when Wal-Mart does it, it should be recognized as an integral part of international competition.
And such facts are borne out in the numbers. According to the President's Council of Economic Advisers 2002 Economic Report, immigrants effectively raise the income of Americans by upwards of $12 billion a year. A rational temporary worker program would allow us to match foreign workers with American employers for wages that no American is willing to take, but does not require that we throw in citizenship as part of the deal.
Unfortunately the 1986 act had the unintended effect of turning seasonal illegals into long-term permanent lawbreakers by increasing the risks of crossing back and forth. Alternatively, a temporary legal status would alleviate much of the pressure for illegals to seek permanent status since they would be free to come and go across the border at will. Under the rules today they have the opposite incentive. Why, because the barriers to frequent entry are so high that once they come in (legally or otherwise) they have every incentive to make a permanent residence of America including resorting to having "anchor babies" (children born by illegal aliens in the U.S. that automatically become citizens). And by reducing the flow of illegal aliens, we can apply border enforcement resources more efficiently against those who present a threat to the country.
Ultimately, since the primary motivation for these workers is not citizenship, there should be no easy footpath to citizenship built into the program. Working in America is an economic opportunity of a lifetime -- in other words, getting the work permit is its own reward. With a temporary worker program, economic migrants would be given a chance to obtain wealth and related economic sustenance they can't get in their home country. Therefore, there is no need to offer citizenship as an added inducement.
Putting the Heat on Illegals
Once operational, those individuals here in America illegally will face a choice. Go to their home country and apply for the program or watch as others do exactly that while they miss out on the benefits of legal status. Employers will quickly demonstrate that they far more prefer a steady and reliable supply of legal unskilled workers (who have all passed background checks) to the outlaw labor force they rely on today. Ironically, it will be the illegal aliens who will feel the heat of competition most, because when the program is up and running and operating on a first-come-first-served basis, those that join in first will see the benefits sooner. (And by charging a fee for this, a temporary worker program could likely be used as a revenue source to pay for itself as well as provide additional border enforcement resources.)
Ideally rather than a fixed limit, the program would have a fluctuating fee level which would rise and fall depending on demand. Starting at around $1500 (the going rate for smugglers) and rising to say $10000 per applicant, potential workers and their employers could decide for themselves what the ultimate level should be. On the other hand with a floor of $8 billion and a ceiling of nearly $55 billion in revenue even if only half of the undocumented workers joined the program, the American taxpayer would easily come out ahead.
Additionally the plan should have two features. First like worker's comp programs all across the nation, it would require potential employers to be responsible for the social services used by these workers. Employers could provide health insurance if they chose. If not, whenever the temporary workers are provided assistance, hospitals and other government service providers would be allowed to seek reimbursement from the employers instead of sending the bill to the American taxpayer. A second feature would be that participants in the program would agree that their participation in the program in no way may be used to advance or assist them in seeking citizenship status.
And the program would have other benefits as well such as being attractive to fathers and older sons and single women who generally prefer to work seasonally or annually and then return to their home country. In a return to the practice prior to the act of 1986, participants in the new program would have little incentive to uproot their entire family or to have "anchor babies" in order to protect their ability to maintain their presence in the U.S.
Border Security
On the other hand, for those individuals uninterested in employment opportunity, the U.S. should signal a reinvigorated commitment to controlling border security and American citizenship. The U.S. has every right to restrict who it will invite to become an American and to set the terms. Indeed, any policy that rewards those who enter the country illegally is a poor one.
In fact, knowing who is crossing our borders has taken on a greater urgency -- particularly after 9/11. The U.S. should commit itself to a policy of returning every illegal alien caught crossing the border without exception (and rules like this could help provide incentives to other countries to help). New approaches such as interior repatriation for Mexican nationals (which transports illegals to interior portions of Mexico instead of simply escorting them back across the border) should be employed, and greater use of electronic surveillance at border sites should be undertaken.
The completely unworkable policy of "catch and release" should be ended within the next 15 months. Under this practice, if non-Mexican illegal aliens are apprehended they are released and told to return later for an immigration status hearing. As you might imagine, 75 percent of these persons simply fail to ever show up for their day in court. Also, the US should commit the resources to allow expedited hearings and new detention facilities so that once illegal aliens are caught by border patrol, they aren't allowed a chance to escape deportation, and instead are forced to actually appear in court. As illegal border crossings of economic migrants are reduced, interdiction of other drug smugglers and related criminals will be much easier to accomplish.
Ultimately, by separating immigrant citizenship policy from a temporary unskilled labor program, America will be living up to its own ideals -- keeping our borders open to legal travel and honest trade while securing them from exploitation by criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers. And by ensuring that citizenship is granted solely to those who understand and value the benefits of being an American, we'll protect our culture and the American way of life.
President Bush wants people to sing the national anthem in English only. Promoters of singing it in Spanish are pointing to comments by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - and her department's Web site - as ammunition for their side of the argument.
There are four Spanish versions on USINFO.State.gov, a multi-language Web site.
"I've heard the national anthem done in rap versions, country versions, classical versions," Rice said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"The individualization of the American national anthem is quite under way."
The release of a Spanish version of the National Anthem last week gives Congress an opportunity to affirm one of America's great strengths -- and gives needed direction to the current debate about immigration. We welcome immigrants from across the world. But once they're here, they must learn to speak English and embrace the values that make us Americans.
In June, the same group that released this Spanish version of the National Anthem will release another version. Far from being a Spanish translation of "The Star Spangled Banner," this version contains lyrics that mock and condemn our laws against illegal immigration. Here's just a sampling:
These kids have no parents, cause of all the mean laws
Let's not start a war with all these hard workers
They can't help where they were born
Congress should act now -- this week -- to reaffirm that our national anthem is "The Star Spangled Banner" and that it should be sung in English. Period.
California Senate Backs Boycott. Does Nancy Pelosi Agree?
The California Senate has endorsed today's boycott of work and school by illegal immigrants and their supporters.
On a party-line vote, Democrats in the California Senate called the boycott "The Great American Boycott 2006" and compared it to the Civil Rights movement.
Meanwhile, amidst rising racial tensions, California education officials pleaded for students to stay in school Monday.
This action by California Democrats reminds us of this recruitment flyer seeking votes for the Democratic Party, found at an illegal immigrant protest. It shows Texas and Mexico combined and the rest of the United States missing and states, "Let's work together. Vote Democrat in 2006." Do the Democrats really want to be the party of illegal immigration? Do they want to be the party of people who not only break the law, but then say openly that they want to reunite the Southwestern United States with Mexico.
On the one hand, US immigrant citizenship policy as modified in 1986 by the Immigration Reform and Control Act -- which attempted to address seasonal temporary workers -- has been an abysmal failure. The act made it unlawful to knowingly hire an undocumented worker and provided for a one-year amnesty for illegal aliens who had already worked and lived in the U.S. since January 1982. Although at the time there were less than 3 million illegal aliens in the U.S., the grant of amnesty sent a signal to the world that the U.S. would no longer be serious about its border. Combined with a phasing out of employer sanctions, predictably the number of illegals has swelled nearly 4 times to more than 11 million people (many of whom assume that a new amnesty is waiting just around the corner).
Today it is vital that we adopt a policy that separates those aliens seeking permanent status from those only interested in temporary employment opportunities. Unfortunately, much of the present debate treats the groups as if they are one and the same. By failing to make this distinction, we risk going forward with an updated-but-incoherent program.
Economic Refugees, Labor Flexibility
First and foremost, policymakers must recognize that there are significant economic consequences to allowing geographical barriers to determine wages -- particularly in the context of low-skilled workers. Every American household pays an arbitrarily (and therefore wasteful) higher price for the goods and services that are provided when they are denied the benefit of competition simply because of where they live. Although often mentioned in the context of goods, the principle is no less true of labor costs. A rational temporary worker plan recognizes that we exist in a global economy that requires labor flexibility and allows honest workers interested in coming to America to provide for their families while respecting our laws.
Let's look at it from the low- or unskilled-laborer's perspective: Typically these workers are economic refugees plagued by the corrupt and chaotic economic regimes and attendant policies of Mexico or other countries in Latin America. The problems in these countries are not America's fault. Arguably, many of these workers would likely challenge their own governments if they didn't have America as a viable outlet. Nevertheless, it is in our economic interest to allow them to enter our labor force if not but to help maintain our own economic vitality.
To be sure, the presence of these workers has the effect of deflating salaries among unskilled or low-skilled laborers, but this consequence is offset by the benefit of increasing the standard of living for Americans which occurs because the lower priced goods and services they provide are made more readily available than they would be otherwise. Unless this process is only good when Wal-Mart does it, it should be recognized as an integral part of international competition.
And such facts are borne out in the numbers. According to the President's Council of Economic Advisers 2002 Economic Report, immigrants effectively raise the income of Americans by upwards of $12 billion a year. A rational temporary worker program would allow us to match foreign workers with American employers for wages that no American is willing to take, but does not require that we throw in citizenship as part of the deal.
Unfortunately the 1986 act had the unintended effect of turning seasonal illegals into long-term permanent lawbreakers by increasing the risks of crossing back and forth. Alternatively, a temporary legal status would alleviate much of the pressure for illegals to seek permanent status since they would be free to come and go across the border at will. Under the rules today they have the opposite incentive. Why, because the barriers to frequent entry are so high that once they come in (legally or otherwise) they have every incentive to make a permanent residence of America including resorting to having "anchor babies" (children born by illegal aliens in the U.S. that automatically become citizens). And by reducing the flow of illegal aliens, we can apply border enforcement resources more efficiently against those who present a threat to the country.
Ultimately, since the primary motivation for these workers is not citizenship, there should be no easy footpath to citizenship built into the program. Working in America is an economic opportunity of a lifetime -- in other words, getting the work permit is its own reward. With a temporary worker program, economic migrants would be given a chance to obtain wealth and related economic sustenance they can't get in their home country. Therefore, there is no need to offer citizenship as an added inducement.
Putting the Heat on Illegals
Once operational, those individuals here in America illegally will face a choice. Go to their home country and apply for the program or watch as others do exactly that while they miss out on the benefits of legal status. Employers will quickly demonstrate that they far more prefer a steady and reliable supply of legal unskilled workers (who have all passed background checks) to the outlaw labor force they rely on today. Ironically, it will be the illegal aliens who will feel the heat of competition most, because when the program is up and running and operating on a first-come-first-served basis, those that join in first will see the benefits sooner. (And by charging a fee for this, a temporary worker program could likely be used as a revenue source to pay for itself as well as provide additional border enforcement resources.)
Ideally rather than a fixed limit, the program would have a fluctuating fee level which would rise and fall depending on demand. Starting at around $1500 (the going rate for smugglers) and rising to say $10000 per applicant, potential workers and their employers could decide for themselves what the ultimate level should be. On the other hand with a floor of $8 billion and a ceiling of nearly $55 billion in revenue even if only half of the undocumented workers joined the program, the American taxpayer would easily come out ahead.
Additionally the plan should have two features. First like worker's comp programs all across the nation, it would require potential employers to be responsible for the social services used by these workers. Employers could provide health insurance if they chose. If not, whenever the temporary workers are provided assistance, hospitals and other government service providers would be allowed to seek reimbursement from the employers instead of sending the bill to the American taxpayer. A second feature would be that participants in the program would agree that their participation in the program in no way may be used to advance or assist them in seeking citizenship status.
And the program would have other benefits as well such as being attractive to fathers and older sons and single women who generally prefer to work seasonally or annually and then return to their home country. In a return to the practice prior to the act of 1986, participants in the new program would have little incentive to uproot their entire family or to have "anchor babies" in order to protect their ability to maintain their presence in the U.S.
Border Security
On the other hand, for those individuals uninterested in employment opportunity, the U.S. should signal a reinvigorated commitment to controlling border security and American citizenship. The U.S. has every right to restrict who it will invite to become an American and to set the terms. Indeed, any policy that rewards those who enter the country illegally is a poor one.
In fact, knowing who is crossing our borders has taken on a greater urgency -- particularly after 9/11. The U.S. should commit itself to a policy of returning every illegal alien caught crossing the border without exception (and rules like this could help provide incentives to other countries to help). New approaches such as interior repatriation for Mexican nationals (which transports illegals to interior portions of Mexico instead of simply escorting them back across the border) should be employed, and greater use of electronic surveillance at border sites should be undertaken.
The completely unworkable policy of "catch and release" should be ended within the next 15 months. Under this practice, if non-Mexican illegal aliens are apprehended they are released and told to return later for an immigration status hearing. As you might imagine, 75 percent of these persons simply fail to ever show up for their day in court. Also, the US should commit the resources to allow expedited hearings and new detention facilities so that once illegal aliens are caught by border patrol, they aren't allowed a chance to escape deportation, and instead are forced to actually appear in court. As illegal border crossings of economic migrants are reduced, interdiction of other drug smugglers and related criminals will be much easier to accomplish.
Ultimately, by separating immigrant citizenship policy from a temporary unskilled labor program, America will be living up to its own ideals -- keeping our borders open to legal travel and honest trade while securing them from exploitation by criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers. And by ensuring that citizenship is granted solely to those who understand and value the benefits of being an American, we'll protect our culture and the American way of life.
The debate over illegal immigration has managed to conflate two separate issues -- American immigrant citizenship status (and related requirements) on the one hand, and the economic consequences of having limited access to unskilled workers in the domestic labor pool. The two issues are not one and the same. Thus, resolving the complex choices associated with each will be easier when they are treated differently.
On the one hand, US immigrant citizenship policy as modified in 1986 by the Immigration Reform and Control Act -- which attempted to address seasonal temporary workers -- has been an abysmal failure. The act made it unlawful to knowingly hire an undocumented worker and provided for a one-year amnesty for illegal aliens who had already worked and lived in the U.S. since January 1982. Although at the time there were less than 3 million illegal aliens in the U.S., the grant of amnesty sent a signal to the world that the U.S. would no longer be serious about its border. Combined with a phasing out of employer sanctions, predictably the number of illegals has swelled nearly 4 times to more than 11 million people (many of whom assume that a new amnesty is waiting just around the corner).
Today it is vital that we adopt a policy that separates those aliens seeking permanent status from those only interested in temporary employment opportunities. Unfortunately, much of the present debate treats the groups as if they are one and the same. By failing to make this distinction, we risk going forward with an updated-but-incoherent program.
Economic Refugees, Labor Flexibility
First and foremost, policymakers must recognize that there are significant economic consequences to allowing geographical barriers to determine wages -- particularly in the context of low-skilled workers. Every American household pays an arbitrarily (and therefore wasteful) higher price for the goods and services that are provided when they are denied the benefit of competition simply because of where they live. Although often mentioned in the context of goods, the principle is no less true of labor costs. A rational temporary worker plan recognizes that we exist in a global economy that requires labor flexibility and allows honest workers interested in coming to America to provide for their families while respecting our laws.
Let's look at it from the low- or unskilled-laborer's perspective: Typically these workers are economic refugees plagued by the corrupt and chaotic economic regimes and attendant policies of Mexico or other countries in Latin America. The problems in these countries are not America's fault. Arguably, many of these workers would likely challenge their own governments if they didn't have America as a viable outlet. Nevertheless, it is in our economic interest to allow them to enter our labor force if not but to help maintain our own economic vitality.
To be sure, the presence of these workers has the effect of deflating salaries among unskilled or low-skilled laborers, but this consequence is offset by the benefit of increasing the standard of living for Americans which occurs because the lower priced goods and services they provide are made more readily available than they would be otherwise. Unless this process is only good when Wal-Mart does it, it should be recognized as an integral part of international competition.
And such facts are borne out in the numbers. According to the President's Council of Economic Advisers 2002 Economic Report, immigrants effectively raise the income of Americans by upwards of $12 billion a year. A rational temporary worker program would allow us to match foreign workers with American employers for wages that no American is willing to take, but does not require that we throw in citizenship as part of the deal.
Unfortunately the 1986 act had the unintended effect of turning seasonal illegals into long-term permanent lawbreakers by increasing the risks of crossing back and forth. Alternatively, a temporary legal status would alleviate much of the pressure for illegals to seek permanent status since they would be free to come and go across the border at will. Under the rules today they have the opposite incentive. Why, because the barriers to frequent entry are so high that once they come in (legally or otherwise) they have every incentive to make a permanent residence of America including resorting to having "anchor babies" (children born by illegal aliens in the U.S. that automatically become citizens). And by reducing the flow of illegal aliens, we can apply border enforcement resources more efficiently against those who present a threat to the country.
Ultimately, since the primary motivation for these workers is not citizenship, there should be no easy footpath to citizenship built into the program. Working in America is an economic opportunity of a lifetime -- in other words, getting the work permit is its own reward. With a temporary worker program, economic migrants would be given a chance to obtain wealth and related economic sustenance they can't get in their home country. Therefore, there is no need to offer citizenship as an added inducement.
Putting the Heat on Illegals
Once operational, those individuals here in America illegally will face a choice. Go to their home country and apply for the program or watch as others do exactly that while they miss out on the benefits of legal status. Employers will quickly demonstrate that they far more prefer a steady and reliable supply of legal unskilled workers (who have all passed background checks) to the outlaw labor force they rely on today. Ironically, it will be the illegal aliens who will feel the heat of competition most, because when the program is up and running and operating on a first-come-first-served basis, those that join in first will see the benefits sooner. (And by charging a fee for this, a temporary worker program could likely be used as a revenue source to pay for itself as well as provide additional border enforcement resources.)
Ideally rather than a fixed limit, the program would have a fluctuating fee level which would rise and fall depending on demand. Starting at around $1500 (the going rate for smugglers) and rising to say $10000 per applicant, potential workers and their employers could decide for themselves what the ultimate level should be. On the other hand with a floor of $8 billion and a ceiling of nearly $55 billion in revenue even if only half of the undocumented workers joined the program, the American taxpayer would easily come out ahead.
Additionally the plan should have two features. First like worker's comp programs all across the nation, it would require potential employers to be responsible for the social services used by these workers. Employers could provide health insurance if they chose. If not, whenever the temporary workers are provided assistance, hospitals and other government service providers would be allowed to seek reimbursement from the employers instead of sending the bill to the American taxpayer. A second feature would be that participants in the program would agree that their participation in the program in no way may be used to advance or assist them in seeking citizenship status.
And the program would have other benefits as well such as being attractive to fathers and older sons and single women who generally prefer to work seasonally or annually and then return to their home country. In a return to the practice prior to the act of 1986, participants in the new program would have little incentive to uproot their entire family or to have "anchor babies" in order to protect their ability to maintain their presence in the U.S.
Border Security
On the other hand, for those individuals uninterested in employment opportunity, the U.S. should signal a reinvigorated commitment to controlling border security and American citizenship. The U.S. has every right to restrict who it will invite to become an American and to set the terms. Indeed, any policy that rewards those who enter the country illegally is a poor one.
In fact, knowing who is crossing our borders has taken on a greater urgency -- particularly after 9/11. The U.S. should commit itself to a policy of returning every illegal alien caught crossing the border without exception (and rules like this )could help provide incentives to other countries to help). New approaches such as interior repatriation for Mexican nationals (which transports illegals to interior portions of Mexico instead of simply escorting them back across the border) should be employed, and greater use of electronic surveillance at border sites should be undertaken.
The completely unworkable policy of "catch and release" should be ended within the next 15 months. Under this practice, if non-Mexican illegal aliens are apprehended they are released and told to return later for an immigration status hearing. As you might imagine, 75 percent of these persons simply fail to ever show up for their day in court. Also, the US should commit the resources to allow expedited hearings and new detention facilities so that once illegal aliens are caught by border patrol, they aren't allowed a chance to escape deportation, and instead are forced to actually appear in court. As illegal border crossings of economic migrants are reduced, interdiction of other drug smugglers and related criminals will be much easier to accomplish.
Ultimately, by separating immigrant citizenship policy from a temporary unskilled labor program, America will be living up to its own ideals -- keeping our borders open to legal travel and honest trade while securing them from exploitation by criminals, terrorists and drug traffickers. And by ensuring that citizenship is granted solely to those who understand and value the benefits of being an American, we'll protect our culture and the American way of life...
Thank you.
My apologies for the duplications. I thought that I had eliminated any of those.
Sue
It just cracks me up to read all your bitter little comments. Let's damn the exploited immigrants who are propping up our sinking economy and forget about how badly the economy is doing to begin with. Really makes sense huh?
Buenos noches, losers
"Templar, I am not proposing amnesty. But there are other potential policies besides that and arresting/deporting them all and putting up a big fence."
Ok, Dave, I think we can talk. There may be something in between that we can agree on. This much I know, we absolutely must secure our borders. I realize that the Canadian border is open also, but the majority of the danger comes from the southern border.
There are already proven cases of ME males crossing our southern border. To do what we don't know. My best guess is that some just want to work but some have set up terrorist cells waiting to be activated. By Iran, or Hamas, or perhaps Syria. Could they explode a nuclear device in one of our major cities? God forbid it, but we were caught with our pants down one time, can we really afford to get surprised again?
As for the illegals, this is going to be tough for me because they broke the law. If there is not some punishment for law-breaking, what kind of signal is this? My suggestion would be that these people must all apply to come here legally. The ones who can prove, and I mean the proof must be verifiable, that they have been here for a certain period of time, and have broken no laws, should be allowed to apply first, and perhaps stay here during the application period. But there has to be some accounting to all this mess. We didn't get here in a few months, and we won't solve the problem quickly, either.
I realize that the Canadian border is open also, but the majority of the danger comes from the southern border.
Why? I've asked this question more times than you've asked about the cost of amnesty, and nobody has ever responded.
Verifiable? Good luck. The quality of counterfeit documents, particularly in Los Angeles (MacArthur Park anyone?) is stunning. And who says the number is only 11 million? That is an ESTIMATE my friends. Please, continue taking the teaspoonfuls of "quality information" from the media and government. I choose the red pill, myself.
Dave, apparently you missed a previous post I did on the reason the southern border is the most dangerous. There are already people in place who make a living smuggling people and drugs across the southern border.
Mexican officials are also more corrupt and lower paid, which opens up opportunities that do not exist in Canada. Canada's law enforcement agencies are also better equiped and trained than Mexicos, and would theoretically be more likely to detect terrorists.
I'm not saying that an attack could not come from across the Canadian border, but that the mess on the southern border makes it a softer target for smuggling in a bomb or other device. And besides, it is already happening. ME males have already been captured trying to cross the southern border.
you guys should go ahead and get a divorce. It's never going to work out between you two...
Can't we all just come up with some way to control the numbers and GET ALLONG
Wow. i feel that we should allow the illegal immigrants to remain in the USA. If we send them back now, they're just going to come back again and bring friends. their numbers are huge it's time to work with them rather than against them. and beyond that, who can blame them, if you had been raised in a place where even though you had a college degree you weren't able to get a job and feed your family, who's to say you wouldn't do what's nessecary to help save your life. stop being so ignorant. you people are disgusting. i'm american,and white and i'm fully ashamed of many of you, you're the people that give our race such an awful name.
What gets in my craw, is that the gov't is cowtowing down to them. If I went to live in another country, I would NOT expect them to change their whole scheme of living just for me. Im sick of picking up a package, only to see the directions written in a foreign language.
Im pissed that our gov't bends over backwards to give these ignorant souls everything they need, while us middle class are forced to pay for it via our taxes.
In my state, the mayor actually has in place, a plan to bring over P.Rican police to fill the language bearier. What an ass!
I didn't fight in a foreign land, just to come back to my own beloved country, finding it full of immigrants blathering in pig latin!
Austalia is looking better and better
While some of you complain the Mexicans aren't learning the language, many who've posted to this board can barely complete a sentence. Your grammar is poor, spelling atrocious, and your solutions are elementary or non-existent. You rattle off the anti-immigration blather as if it's a solution.
Here's what we need to do to solve many of America's problems: get rid of the "citizen by birth" rule, deport criminals, execute prisoners on death row - no more appeals, dissolve the Federal Reserve (banking is the source of many of our problems, but people fail to realize this), forgive the debt of all citizens (except home loans). Require a flat tax for all, tax churches, popular vote for president (no more electoral college), and citizen’s vote for bi-annual military budget. Require balanced budgets for local, state, and federal governments with only the average cost of living increase. No more government airline bailouts, government taxes from polluting industries should be based on that corporation’s profit. No more corporate bankruptcy recoveries - if your company fails, it fails.
Representatives in congress should be paid no more than the average wage and should have to pay the average for health care coverage of all earners in their state. We need to treat the government as a corporation.
And wake up - this is a distraction from the real crime going on - multinational banks and corporations stealing our future.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home