I can only imagine what an affect this will have on illegal Mexican-American workers, especially in states like California and Texas.

On a slightly related note, I've heard talk that the Social Security program might be eliminated sometime in the next 20 odd years. This may be because of government spending or because of the Gen-X'ers cashing in on their SS accounts. Has anyone else heard or read anything about this? And if true, wouldn't that make this bill pointless?

In reality though this bill will have the same effect as chasing a fly around the house with a baseball bat.

illegal immigration is NOT a fly. 9.3 million people and 1/4 of the foreign born population.

me, i'm skeptical that employers won't just get around these strictures, and more regulation isn't always a solution for these sort of issues. nonetheless, i am in principle in favor of laws that would make it difficult for employers to use illegal immigrants in lieu of those with residency or citizenship.

true, it isn't compassionate to force out, disuade and render unemployable illegal immigrants. they are people too. but the reductio ad absurdum is that we give away all our possessions & let the WHOLE world move to the first world. where do you draw the line. myself, i favor cutting low skilled immigration and artificially propping up the wages of natives and legal residents with few educational creds and a minimal skill set by strangling the supply of cheap, efficient and malleable labor without documentation. yes, being american, or immigrating is like winning the lottery. but some people win, and some people lose, in life.

the republic needs an employed working class. the republic needs to digest those immigrants and foreign born we have here. slamming illegal immigration is the easy way to do it. without the repubic there wouldn't be an el norte to emigrate to in the first place.

a national ID card would help too. i'm really mixed on this shit, i don't trust the gov. nevertheless, there are two sides here. part of me admires enterprising people who work the system to their benefit and get what is theirs through hard work and ingenuity. part of me says that we must be cold blooded about enforcing laws so that the system which we cherish can be perpetuated.

A viable guest worker program is the only solution. As harsh as it sounds we need people to do the jobs that our own citizens won't do. The economy will crumble without that workforce. At the same time we need to incentevize safe and legal crossings of the border so that the current situation can be avoided. The fence solution is the dumbest idea ever conceived.

people talk as if there wasn't anything before the existence of U.S. People have been migrating for thousands of years and if that means the quality of life might go down at one place, so be it. In reality though, the immigrants legally or illegally contributes a heck lot to the economy - immigrants do not come here to be leaches on the welfare system here - btw, what welfare system are we talking about here? Taking to an ER and doing the bare minimum to keep a person alive in an emergency - most immigrants would say no thanks to that. they are here, because the folks here do not want to work in farms and cleaning restrooms. Now americans are able to get affordable services through the illegal immigrants - and nobody is going to stop that - that is how the world works. in a globalized world, and especially in a capitalistic system if people want to go for lower wages, who can stop that?

This provision can have an impact on many South Asians who are already out of status. It will also affect individuals who fall out of status temporarily (for failure to report a change of address within ten days, for example); or even students on F- 1 visas who drop below a full course load; or H-1B workers who lose their jobs and cannot find another job in a certain period of time.

Technically, all the above are indeed out of status and thus are illegally present in the US.
But from what I have seen, unless the INS really wants to get you for something else (read terrorism) they dont usually rely on these provisions.
Speaking of the new Bill, I am not very sure, if practically it will make any difference, SAALT's assertion notwithstanding unless the Federal data base will flag these people as illegals.
Most of these people (F-1s and H-1s) will be applying for a change in visa status or a new H-1 with the INS anyway so if the previous small infraction (like dropping below the class load) were enough to make them illegal, they will never be able to get any visa/extension from the INS which already has a data base on all immigrants.

One way in which it can hurt the non citizen South Asian community is that it will deter employers from hiring people who are foreigners.
No one likes to do additional paper work, risk bigger fines so unless the INS makes it extremely simple for the employers to comply with the law, it will be another reason for the employers for not hiring non citizens.

I heard some political analyst on the radio yesterday arguing that this bill is basically pre-election posturing -- the bill has no chance of passing both the house and senate (maybe the house, definitely not the senate).

On a practical level, if it were to pass, the criminalizing of illegality would be a disaster on so many levels, it's hard to even know where to start. Try adding 10 million people to the already overcrowded jail system. Try diverting the attention of conventional law enforcement to detaining every likely illegal alien they see. Try pulling all of those people out of the low-paid, menial positions they are currently in (which are still incredibly valuable to the American economy): a number of major American industries would collapse overnight.

And that's to say nothing about the ethical problems involved.

I hope the analyst I heard was right, because everything else in this bill smells really bad.

Speaking of the new Bill, I am not very sure, if practically it will make any difference, SAALT's assertion notwithstanding unless the Federal data base will flag these people as illegals.

I was only referring to the problem of employers checking with the Federal data base for a prospective employee.
The Bill has loads of other provisions as well most of which are harsh and some almost draconian.

Most immigration bills never make it through the Congress. The Republicans are in trouble and clutching at straws to appeal to their core voters. Dont be surprised if you see increased anti-gay and pro-religion activity in the following months.

Most immigration bills never make it through the Congress.

Yes, but a lot do make it through and have a harmful effect on immigrants. This year, Congress passed the Real ID Act which will have a huge impact on immigrants. And in 1996, Congress passed - under a Democratic Administration - a sweeping immigration law that denied benefits to even legal immigrants.

The bill pending in the House now might not pass the Senate (it will likely pass the House) but it's a signal to the country of continuing restrictionist legislation related to immigrants - and it's important to present the other side, regardless of whether or not the bill becomes law.

>>Earlier today SAALT put out an alert asking the South Asian American community to immediately write their representative and senators and urge them to vote this down

95+% of Indians come into the US through one of these avenues:

1. Family sponsorship (~10%)
2. F1->H1->GreenCard->Citizen(~40%)
3. H1->GreenCard->Citizen(~45%)

Of the other ~5%, most of them come in legally through various other means. Only about 1% or less come in via questionable means.

So, why should we fight a legislation that has no bearing on 99% of us whatsoever? Every one of my employers in the US has asked for my SS# - I have no problem with it.

M. Nam

MoorNam,
I help a lot of Indian immigrants with their immigration issues and I can assure you that there are a LOT of Indians who have immigration problems.
I am not sure where you got the 99% figure from but there are loads and loads of Indians who overstay their visa and commit other immigration infractions.
As we have a culture of shame, most of your uncles and their nephews dont talk about it.

It just annoys the f*** out of me when I see Desis (especially 1st gens) making the asinine presumption that all desis come to the US via the H1/F1 route.
Surely, you have seen enough Indians working as illegal cab drivers, manning gas stations, domestic help, maintenance staff in motels, old aunties and uncles who have overstayed their tourist visa to know that a lot of Indians have committed serious immigration violations.
Not that you would ever hear about it at a desi party!

or even students on F- 1 visas who drop below a full course load;

This is very scary ..

What frightens me most is that if a legal immigrant who is here to work or study falls out of status because of some misunderstanding or bureaucratic mix-up, they will be treated as criminals.

I will quote my own experience with this. As a grad student (International) we were required to keep a certain course load. I had taken the appropriate course load but 2-3 weeks into one particular class I found that the Prof.'s teaching style was horrible, the course work to be irrelavant in terms of my major (or minor) and un-interesting as a result I thought, I should drop the class. So, I did drop the class by filing out a form.

In a couple of weeks I got a letter from International Office saying that I am out of status and I had to meet with the International office co-ordinator. The Co-ordinator told me that I were to go out of the US and get another F-1 visa. I didnt know what to do. I had no money to do this.. All the money was used in tuition... no means of transportaion .. nothing. I had never been more scared in my life. After talking to a senior person in the International office I found out that all I needed was a letter from the Prof. that he allowed me to drop his class.

But I cant imagine what would happen to someone in my situation if the said law is in effect.

This is pure politics. House Republicans need some issue to rally behind that appeals to their conservative base and will serve to take people’s minds off the war in Iraq.

Bingo!!

I myself have had immigration problems and was on the verge of returning to India. So, I understand...

However, by and large, most Indians don't have problems. If there are Indian cabbies, gas station attendants and aunties/uncles who overstayed their visas, I say, throw them out. America is not a place for those who have no respect for the rule of law. Compassion should be reserved for those who are deserving and honest.

M. Nam

So, why should we fight a legislation that has no bearing on 99% of us whatsoever? Every one of my employers in the US has asked for my SS# - I have no problem with it.

Dude you need to come to Jersey City or Flushing and check out the reality of illegal immigration: six, seven guys living in an apartment with their families back home in Surat or Baroda (or Bangladesh). It is FAR greater than 1%

This is pure politics. House Republicans need some issue to rally behind that appeals to their conservative base and will serve to take people’s minds off the war in Iraq.

yup.

Mark:>>Dude you need to come to Jersey City or Flushing and check out the reality of illegal immigration: six, seven guys living in an apartment with their families back home in Surat or Baroda (or Bangladesh). It is FAR greater than 1%

I've lived in Flushing with six or seven guys in an apartment. But all of us were legal. Legal immigrants can be thrifty too! (The communal kitchen with four of us making Naans and the other three making curry is the kind of fun that you will rarely experience in your life.)

M. Nam

to say "throw them out" is so damn stupid I can't even begin to talk about it. laws are made by those in power - and you're the kind of person who would say "american" and mean "white." Take some ownership of the country, and stop acting like you earned your status. it's completely arbitrary.

Even though the US pretends to be a beacon of human rights, it really isn't - the inhumane policies towards immgrants and communities of color are fundamentally human rights violations.

Folks - even if the bill eventually fails, those who actually agree that it's a very bad thing should call and write their legislator today to send a message that we who care about immigrant communities won't stay quiet about these issues. Trust me - the haters are mobilizing to call even the most committed anti-immigrant senators and representatives (like Tancredo and Brownback), just to make sure they know, and to bolster the legislators' rhetoric that this is "American public opinion."

We have to bring it to change it - meaning to escalate the level of debate around these issues and combat the assumptions that media and lawmakers have internalized. And it's important to get congresspeople who are against this legislation and are pro-immigrant rights to speak on the floor during debate to enter their perspective on the record. The level of rhetoric on the other side is quite frightful, and voluminous.

I'll spare readers my feelings about our people who've been bamboozled by these myths, and keep them in my own space. But do make your calls folks - it really does matter, especially this week when Congress is also voting to re-authorize the Patriot Act. Let your representative know that you're watching.

illegal immigration is NOT a fly. 9.3 million people and 1/4 of the foreign born population.

A viable guest worker program is the only solution. As harsh as it sounds we need people to do the jobs that our own citizens won't do.

In a globalized world, and especially in a capitalistic system if people want to go for lower wages, who can stop that?

I'll follow up with cites later - most of this info is from an immigration class I took a while ago, so it's out of books instead of online reports.

Speaking about globalization, Robert Reich had a good article on globilization recently. anyone see it?

I've lived in Flushing with six or seven guys in an apartment. But all of us were legal. Legal immigrants can be thrifty too! (The communal kitchen with four of us making Naans and the other three making curry is the kind of fun that you will rarely experience in your life.)

M. Nam

You sound like my wistful dad, reminding me of the three-mile-a-day walks to school and the $8.00 in his pocket when he landed up in JFK :-)

Sure, legal immigrants are thrifty, I just believe the illegals are greater than 1%. People frequently overstay on expired tourist or student visas and take up off-the-books jobs (often in Indian establishments). Many of these people convert their status and become stunningly succesful - I don't think it is right to judge them. As Camille say its impossible to get an accurate count. After 9-11, many of the Little Pakistans wre cleared out; Indians weren't as scrupulously targeted. As Duryodhana said in Karna's defense in the Mahabharata when the Pandavas were belittling Karna's caste: “Birth is obscure and men are like rivers whose origins are often unknown". I would say the same about visa status in NYC metro Brown Land. :-)

"If there are Indian cabbies, gas station attendants and aunties/uncles who overstayed their visas, I say, throw them out. America is not a place for those who have no respect for the rule of law"

the need for survival is far greater than the respect for law - if you have no clue about what many of these people have gone through to get here so that their children can have a better life, you'd think twice before you make such statements.

In most immigration circles, folks will tell you that the only way to really crack down is by enforcing employer sanctions, etc, which is even less likely to happen.

This is exactly what the San Jose Mercury News article that Abhi excerpted says the bill is trying to do, however.

I agree that going after undocumented (or fallen off documentation) workers themselves is pointless and retributive, but the employers who enjoy the power they hold over illegal immigrants should get into trouble for hiring people illegally. Moreover, they are going to have the resources to defend themselves if there were extenuating circumstances that justify their actions.

We will never have an honest immigration policy in which Americans have to admit that they need immigrant labor unless there is actual enforcement of our existing policy. Doing it with Border Patrol agents is how we end up with vanfuls of asphyxiated young brown people. Doing it by prosecuting the employers means that people only will get hurt in their wallets -- and only when they've been reaping the benefits of off-the-books wages anyway.

Employers who lose their cheap labor will finally have to speak up and lobby for permitting more immigrants, just as the industries that hire more expensive labor (tech, medical, etc.) have been pushing to get visas for their workers for years.

I don't understand how people think they're "helping" illegal immigrants by keeping them illegal, albeit unprosecuted and not punished by government coercion. No one should be here illegally, not only because of the contempt this creates for the law, but also because of what it does to the immigrants themselves. They are afraid to use police services (hello victims of domestic abuse); they worry about putting their kids in school; they are exploited by employers who always can threaten them with a call to the government.

At least by prosecuting employers, this equalizes power a little -- now when an employer doesn't pay the wages that are due, and tells the employee not to complain or she'll be turned in to the INS, the employee can retort that she'll turn the employer in as well.

As harsh as it sounds we need people to do the jobs that our own citizens won't do.

yes they will, we need to pay them more. i've been in paducah, KY, and montpelier, VT, and the women doing the cleaning work in the hotel were white english speakers. i was, at first, at a loss, being used to hotels in the west or texas. i'm sure the hotel bill was a bit higher, but it is worth it if native born americans with few skills can make some money in jobs which don't require college degrees. sure, it isn't as efficient, and we pay more, but there are social benefits that accrue from having these people work.

(like Tancredo and Brownback)

i know you have a sympathetic audience here, but why just lump people together when they don't belong. brownback get a D/D- from immigration reduction groups. you can see all his votes here. i really get pissed off when people just lump and entire party together. did you know that the late eugene mccarthy, liberal cause celebre in 1968, was an immigration restrictionist? this is not a republicans-are-evil-isssue. barbara jordan, a black representative in the house, was a major figure in trying to force reduction in the numbers of immigrations. her reasoning was that it cut into the prospects of native blacks (who yes, are more expensive and probably less compliant and dutiful in their work than latinos, howz that for stereotypes!).

In reality though, the immigrants legally or illegally contributes a heck lot to the economy -

you are compressing 2 issues. one can oppose unregulated illegal immigration and accept the necessity of legal immigration.

Try pulling all of those people out of the low-paid, menial positions they are currently in (which are still incredibly valuable to the American economy): a number of major American industries would collapse overnight.

no they wouldn't. people won't stop constructing buildings, it will get more expensive. people won't stop having gardeners, just middle class people will. people won't stop getting people to wash their dishes are restaurants, we'll just have fewer places to eat out since the margin will be eaten up by less efficient and more expensive native workers.

interesting, immigrants bring more development, more population, more economic growth. is this sustainable? is this environmentally the right way to go?

my point is this issue is more complex than evil-republicans-in-pointy-red-hats vs. illegal immigrants trying to make a better life for themselves. not every state is new york and california, in my state the number of latino menial workers only increased in the past 10 years. the cost of many goods and services has probably decreased, but while this has been happening, our inequality has been rising as the native working class which has had a difficult time transitioning out of the lumber sector (which is dying) is hit with another blow because of competition with labor which they can't compare with.

yes they will, we need to pay them more.

Yes but isn't that a Utopian viewpoint? Of course they should be paid more but then that means you will have to pay more, which you won't (and by "you" I mean the generic you). Socially concious people may be willing to pay more but there aren't enough of these people. The government sure as hell won't accept such a hit to the economy. As incredible as it sounds, paying a fair wage for comensurate work isn't a viable option in this case. Therefore, by denying illegal immigrant access to social services you are increasing the likelihood that they will become little more than indentured servants.

razib:

I stand corrected - I have other serious issues with Brownback, but mistakenly added him to the list on immigration. Trust me, I don't think this is a GOP-only issue. The Welfare Deform Act was signed under Clinton's administration, after all, and rights advocates are still fighting to get back what we lost in '96.

yes they will, we need to pay them more.

If it was that simple, no job ever would have been outsourced from America. If last 30-40 years are any guide, jobs will always be outsourced where they can be done cheaper (starting from Textile, to mechanical equip ..to IT) Same way if one can be hired at a cheaper rate, it will be done. I think thats known as CAPITALISM.

I think thats known as CAPITALISM.

ah, ok, i will make sure to remember that you read from the CATO INSTITUTE's playbook (no shame in that, david boaz is a friend of mine!).

Yes but isn't that a Utopian viewpoint? Of course they should be paid more but then that means you will have to pay more, which you won't (and by "you" I mean the generic you). Socially concious people may be willing to pay more but there aren't enough of these people. The government sure as hell won't accept such a hit to the economy. As incredible as it sounds, paying a fair wage for comensurate work isn't a viable option in this case. Therefore, by denying illegal immigrant access to social services you are increasing the likelihood that they will become little more than indentured servants.

now, they are indentured servants because they can't bargain. i know a guy who just retired from painting as a contractor, and he was glad of it, the local market is shifting from high educated locals to large groups of recent latino illegals. the dynamic is these crews is different, and many of the contractors screw over their employees because they are off the books. this is why documentation is important.

and no, i don't think it is utopian. between 1925 and 1965 the USA had little immigration. it can be done. as for not wanting to pay more, of course as individuals no one will pay more, that doesn't matter. as a group the electorate says they want less immigration, though it isn't a big priority. the point is not to compress the wants, interests and choices of people into one unitary vector, but to acknowledge tensions. the reason we have a representative democracy is that the founding fathers perceived the ancient direct democracies as chaotic and too prone to the whims of the populace (i.e., the alcibiades affair).

the USA elite certainly stands to benefit from illegal immigrants.

a) they don't compete for jobs with illegals
b) they don't have to worry about sprawl, overextension of social services, etc. because they aren't part of normal american community in their manses

if the gov. passed laws and enforced the regulations on the books people wouldn't have to have a choice but pay for more. let me make an analogy with walmart: cities don't try to keep walmart out because they know as individuals peopel will 'get the best deal' and the downtown will be gutted. people make a collective choice to favor their 'better natures' and keep a downtown though it will cost them monetarily. the same will illegal immigration: it makes live cheaper and more splendid for the middle class, but it makes life more marginal for the working and lower class. a republican citizenship is not dominated by the market, we can't just export workers who can't compete. simple as that.

If it was that simple, no job ever would have been outsourced from America. If last 30-40 years are any guide, jobs will always be outsourced where they can be done cheaper (starting from Textile, to mechanical equip ..to IT) Same way if one can be hired at a cheaper rate, it will be done. I think thats known as CAPITALISM.

ah yes, tell me RC, how are we going to do janitorial work in seattle with people living in bangalore or hong kong? nice rhetoric, but i see the good faith effort and getting to some substantive issues you are making!

i meant high school educated locals

and to be clear, i still consider myself a libertarian (of a tepid sort), but, i have never been one who believers that liberty should be put at the service of the market. the market is the avenue through which we attempt to perpetuate liberty.

the economical arguments that i here from many liberals (all in the service of a particular policy plank) and libertarians are fine, and they make good sense in terms of comparative advantage. but they neglect the reality that republics predate adam smith or david ricardo. republican insitutions, values and mores are somewhat orthogonal to capitalism. just because it increases economic productivity and affluence does not necessarily result in the maintainance of republican values. the rawlsian bargain is that a society is governed so that the quality of life of the lowest of elements is maximized, even at the expense of aggregate utilitarianism. that's basically the argument i'm making here, we should ignore considerations of aggregate utilitarianism when it is clear that 1/2 to 1/4 of americans are going to become economically marginalized in perpetude (and the american children of latino immigrants tend not to want to do the back breaking labor for chump change either, so the conveyer belt keeps on a movin').

of course, if you want to evaluate utilitarianism on a transnational scale (i don't know), then that leads to open borders. but, the current system is strongly biased toward immigrants with means or that are nearby. for instance, hundreds of millions of africans live in abject poverty and constant fear, those are the people who be airlifted ASAP to clean our toilets of maximal utilitarian benefit integrated over the distribution of humanity is our aim. mexico is a relatively affluent country by third world standards. and the fact is that many illegals from asian countries are not the poor of that nation, elsewise they wouldn't have been able to smuggled....

Razib,
On one hand you say that

my point is this issue is more complex than...

And on other hand you say that it is as simple as paying them more. Even if the pay is more, there are some jobs Americans wont do.

how do you know that people won't do jobs if you don't pay them more? i had friends who risked their lives cutting trees in dangerous locales with chainsaws. they got paid $30/hour, which was a lot for high school graduates.

saying that i am saying janitors should be paid as much as doctors is what is called "strawman" thinking.

look, a lot of people here are repeating stuff like 'americans won't do jobs.' hey, i've lived in 99% white parts of the country, and i've lived on ranches, and you know what, farm work got done. now, people were surly, they were sometimes late, and they were expensive. i only saw the early stages of latino farm laborers in the inland part of the west, but the rich farmers sure were happy....

also, let me add one more thing. stipulating that immigrants are needed to do particular jobs americans won't do, i would prefer a canadian system where people with college degrees are the ones doing the shit work. the reason is simple: cultural and genetic capital transmit through generations. we are importing mexico's working class right. by and large mexico's middle and upper class is sitting tight, and glad that the USA is absorbing their restive proletariat and peasantry. contrary to the mythology, the USA has always had diverse immigration policies and rejected many people (emma lazarus' poem was more reflective of conditions in the pale of russia where it was the poor jew who tended to flee the village because of attempts to avoid czarist conscription policies toward their young men). the new england puritans for instance rejected nobles, the illiterate and the poor. in contrast, the 'applachian crackers' derive from poor scots-irish. i do not deny social mobility, but the choices of one generation can echo down through time.

i had friends who risked their lives cutting trees in dangerous locales with chainsaws. they got paid $30/hour, which was a lot for high school graduates.

You are comparing hazardous job to a menial job??

hey, i've lived in 99% white parts of the country, and i've lived on ranches, and you know what, farm work got done.

Well, still was being manufactured in the US, now it isnt. and US unemployment quite still quite low. Economy is growing 3-4 % and Americans are more prosperous today than they were, when Steel was being manufactured in the US.

Your position on this matter is that which (in my opinion) is opposite to the globalized economy. Although thats a perfectly fine position to have, I think globalization cant be stopped.

saying that i am saying janitors should be paid as much as doctors is what is called "strawman" thinking.

And your "Just pay them more" is an extremely simplistic thinking to this very complex issue.

In my last comment
" Well, still was being manufactured in the US"

it should be

" Well, Steel was being manufactured in the US"

Razib wrote:

the rawlsian bargain is that a society is governed so that the quality of life of the lowest of elements is maximized, even at the expense of aggregate utilitarianism. that's basically the argument i'm making here, we should ignore considerations of aggregate utilitarianism when it is clear that 1/2 to 1/4 of americans are going to become economically marginalized in perpetude (and the american children of latino immigrants tend not to want to do the back breaking labor for chump change either, so the conveyer belt keeps on a movin').

But wouldn't a Rawlsian analysis include the illegal immigrants currently here? Those who have been entrenched in the American workforce for say more than ten years. Given that they are an inextricable part of our workforce, and that they have least rights, why wouldn't their interests be included in an analysis?
If lower class whites--with their natural advantages of citizenship, proficiency in English and the natural advantages that come with being part of the majority-- are really dropping out of the workforce because immigrants are taking unskilled positions, why is unemployment so low?

The bill passed. One key backer: Rep. Tom Tancredo, the guy who said we should consider bombing Mecca.

Tancredo is descended from Italian grandparents, in both senses.

Tancredo is gearing up for a protest candidacy for president in 2008 -- he doesn't have a prayer of getting the nomination but he could very well shift the terms of the debate and make immigration a higher profile issue. All of us must get ready for that.

He also protested the design for the Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania, arguing that the crescent-shaped design was "unsuitable for paying appropriate tribute to the heroes of Flight 93 or the ensuing American struggle against radical Islam that their last historic act and the “Let’s Roll” effort has come to symbolize." Why, you might ask? Well, of course -- because "crescent’s prominent use as a symbol in Islam" would "in fact make the memorial a tribute to the hijackers rather than the victims whose mission the flight’s passengers helped to thwart."

Amazingly, the memorial designers revised the design.

Whoa! Just turned from Sepia to NYT after making that last comment, and what do I see on page one? "Capitol's Pariah on Immigration Is Now a Power."

Be very very afraid.

My suggestion to the problem of undocumented/'illegal' immigrants is to back to an old-style Ellis Island approach to immigration. Allow any and all to enter the country without the usual red tape of visas and the like. Weed out the so-called undesirables at the port of entry and issue documentation on the spot. The new immigrant will not be a allowed to take any government services (welfare, medical aid, etc) for a period of five years. It will be a sink or swim proposition. Being 'documented', the immigrant will be able to apply for any job he/she is qualified to do. Those who simply can't make it will fall by the wayside. You'll have fewer instances of so-called 'qualifed' immigrants cleaning floors because they'll have been documented the day they set foot in the US (as opposed to playing cat and mouse with the immigration service). I know that this sounds a simplistic solution to the issue of immigration, and I admit it is.

"If there are Indian cabbies, gas station attendants and aunties/uncles who overstayed their visas, I say, throw them out. America is not a place for those who have no respect for the rule of law"

the need for survival is far greater than the respect for law - if you have no clue about what many of these people have gone through to get here so that their children can have a better life, you'd think twice before you make such statements.

I agree with Bilal. Let any and all in. The cream rises to the top and the dregs fall to the bottom. The strange thing is, what is this survival thing all about. If you ask the typical Indian immigrant about his life, he'll regail you with stories about how good it was back home, what a great life they had with servants and the like. If it was so great, why bother with the bullsh*t of living like caged animals (I've lived in a two bedroom flat in Toronto and can say that, contrary to what Nam has said, it is anything but fun). One has to ask himself this question - is life better for me and my family by my living and working (illegally or otherwise) in Canada/US or not. If not, then go home and stop complaining about the law of the land, a land you CHOSE to go to. If life is better by you being here, good for you and keep your nose to the grindstone.

Perfect, I would like to see how big USA is gonna cope without all illegals. Who is gonna do those dirty jobs?
Americans? No way. They are turning down such well paying jobs as nurse now so do not tell me they are going to work on farm fields.

Perhaps the US should compensate various countries for having gone in without visae, like when they marched into Vietnam....
Issuing permits at entry posts is best like in Hong Kong.
People may complain about being here but they cannot leave because most sell off everything before immigrating or have really terrrible relatives/situations! Their hopes of things being better here did not materialize. Let them grumble, as good a safety release as any. Basically noisy despair.

In any case about 300 million from India should immigrate somewhere may be to latvia, estonia, finland,(wherever hardworking lawabiding labor is required) and encouraged to marry locally.

If we're a nation of laws, then we must not half-ass enforce our current laws.

If you haven't read into effect of immigration, you probably shouldn't talk.

Illegal immigration is supported by many business groups because it gives them
an artificially low wage to work with. For example:
*80% of our farmworks are thought to be
illegal.

*Our banks have special accounts with them call matricula. Well's fargo and Washington Mutual are fairly forthright in that they're doing this. Many of these groups invest quite a bit of money into opening the borders, rather than enforcing them.

Yes, it's possible will need more immigration to America at times, if our workforce doesn't accomdate the needs of our economy. Yet do we really want to become like Brazil, where there's excessive amounts of poor individuals coming into America...in which they can all get FREE medical, schooling, etc. Are you willing to be the tax base for these programs, so some BUSINESS can effectively use slave-wage labor?

What most don't realize is that we prop up the highly corrupt Mexican government, whom without the illegals transfering vast money to the country...would have felt a political uprising of geniune change. By helping illegal immigration you're helping oppression.

Note: These transfers are the second biggest source of income, behind oil. SO I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT'S MEXICO'S REASON TO HATE THIS.

A nation without border is not a nation. The vast majority of Americans support enforcement of these laws, yet they're not listened to. Why?...because the longer this goes on, the more investment goes into representing those that don't have any legal reason to be here. So the consitutent of America no-longer have a voice in this or they're steadily losing that right? So whom is to gain that voice and do you think they'll do better with it? Do you think they did well with that in Mexico?

I think those questions are the right ones, and the answers...fairly easy.

The American National Anthem

Oh Jose cant you see, we're tired of supporting thee.

When you snuck acrossed the border, it began an illegal plight.

Over broad stripes and bright stars, We'll continue to Fight.

Mexican Flags we did watch, that were so sadly streaming.

Our tempers did flare, with Mexican's everywhere.

Gave proof to the nite, we must send them back there.

O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave.

For the land of the U. S. Citizen and the home of the American's.

written and produced by U.S. Citizens
Made In America

Wade into the river, through the rippling shallow watter
Steal across the thirsty border, bracero
Come bring your hungry bodies to the golden fields of plenty
From a peso to a penny, bracero
Oh, Welcome to California
Where the friendly farmer will take care of you

Come labor for your mother, your father and your brother
For your sister and your lover, bracero
Come pick the fruit of yellow, break the flower from the berry
Purple grapes will fill your belly, bracero
Oh, Welcome to California
Where the friendly farmer will take care of you

And the sun will bite your body, as the dust will draw you thristy
While your muscles beg for mercy, bracero
In the shade of your sombrero, drop your sweat upon the soil
Like the fruit your youth can spoil, bracero
Oh, Welcome to California
Where the friendly farmer will take care of you

When the weary night embraces, sleep in shacks that could be cages
They will take it from your wages, bracero
Come sing about tomorrow with a jingle of the dollar
And forget your crooked collar, bracero
Oh, Welcome to California
Where the friendly farmer will take care of you

And the local men are lazy, and they make too much of trouble
Besides we'd have to pay them double, bracero
But if you feel you're fallin', if you find the pace is killing
There are others who are willing, bracero
Oh, Welcome to California
Where the friendly farmer will take care of you

Phil Ochs
"Bracero"