What's news in immigration reform?

1. 82

   Mighty Momposted 9 years ago

   The Senate has passed an immigration reform package.
   What will the House do?
   Here's an interesting WSJ editorial.
   Yeah. If the House doesn't pass it, let's blame Pelosi (really?!!!)
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 62490.html
   
   President Bush, who has been increasingly coming back into public light in his retirement, had this to say. It seems to me he is urging his GOP colleagues off their staunch "secure the borders!" stance.
   
   Props to Bush.
   Hearing him makes me realize how shrilly far right and unreasonable the GOP (the ones that get media attention) have gone.
   
   http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/10/politics/ … hpt=hp_bn3

   replyreport
2. 80

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   We have come to the point where even a lefty-head like me is seeing Bush as a voice of reason.
   
   Be afraid, be very afraid.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Nancy's Nicheposted 9 years ago

   We do not need this bill; we already have an immigration bill in effect that suffers from “NON-ENFORCEMENT”. This new bill will not stop illegal immigration because; our government will ignore enforcement of it just as they have in the past. This, in my opinion, is an unpardonable violation against American Citizens, today’s unemployment numbers, our lifestyle, income, wage deterioration, health and safety. We do not have a worker shortage; we have a job shortage due to outsourcing and illegal immigrants. 
   
   http://video.foxnews.com/v/253826666500 … 4913880001

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      But the purpose of the bill is not to stop the hordes of aliens pouring over the border; it is to grant amnesty to the criminals already here and give them (and their relatives) access to all the freebies provided by the American citizens.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Hey there Wilderness. Nice to see ya.
         
         I have come away with a totally different take on both of these issues after reading the Senate bill. It is obvious that stemming the tide of illegal border crossing is a major part of the legislation. The version that was passed to the House calls for border fencing and security plans for the US-Mexico border that provide a strategy for achieving persistent surveillance of the border and an apprehension rate of 90 percent or more. It appears to be a substantial effort, as you put it, "to stop the hordes." 
         
         Nor does the term amnesty seem totally appropriate either. Amnesty implies a full pardon and a free ride to full citizenship but the bill offers neither. It actually imposes penalties on the undocumented for their illegal entry. The law does not just wipe the slate clean. Under the Senate version just passed, undocumented aliens will have to earn the privileges of citizenship by paying a fine. They will also have to pay back-taxes, submit to a background check, and endure a probation period of up to 15 years. Even Sen. Paul Ryan admits that the costs, penalties, and effort required are not a true amnesty. "I think an earned legalization-not amnesty-an earned legalization process which deals with all of these issues, including the undocumented population, is something that I believe the House can and will deal with." {1}
         
         The bill states that Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status is different than nonimmigrant (temporary) status; but qualified RPI aliens will receive work authorization, travel authorization, and will be considered "lawfully present." In this regard, the RPI status is virtually the same as nonimmigrant status. {2}
         
         RPI status can be awarded to an illegal alien who is eligible, submits biometric data, pays a fee and a $1,000 penalty. RPI status lasts six years and is renewable. An RPI alien will be eligible for a green card in ten years and for naturalization in thirteen years.
         
         To be eligible for RPI status, an alien must demonstrate he/she:
         * Is physically present in the U.S. on the date of application;
         * Has been physically present in the U.S. on or before December 31, 2011;
         * Has maintained continuous physical presence since Dec. 31, 2011;
         and
         * Has satisfied any formal IRS tax assessment - if any - before applying for RPI status.
         
         A reading of the bill indicates that American citizenship is not being freely granted. It must be earned and the process can take up to 15 years. This discussion, however, may be futile since the House has announced plans to avoid a comprehensive bill. Sen. Ryan's "earned legalization process" may end up on the House cutting room floor.
         
         {1} http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/paul … 16824.html
         {2} http://www.fairus.org/_blog/Immigration … l-summary/

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Overall, I understand where you're coming from, I just disagree as to both the reasoning and effects.
            
            First, I do not believe there will be effective border control.  They are NOT going to fence the borders, particularly our southern one.  I don't believe it, in other words - the legislation sounds great but isn't going to work.  The ONLY way to effectively stem the tide is to enact sufficient reason not to hire illegals, and that hasn't even been looked at as far as I can tell.  This part of the bill is nothing but a sop to the opponents of illegal "immigration", no more.
            
            Penalties - sure, make them pay back taxes.  On income received under the table where it cannot be verified - another sop that isn't going to work.  And when those taxes and the $1,000 penalty is received we'll turn around and give it back in the form of various welfare and other support mechanisms, with the end result that the American citizen is still going to support those now legal illegals while a few employers make hay.  More legislation that sounds wonderful but means absolutely nothing.  IMHO.
            
            15 years - why in the world does it take 15 years to become a citizen?  Because the employers then have over a decade to pay low wages?  Because so many illegals are here just to feed at the American trough and go back home?  I cannot see any reason for the process to take even 5 years!  Certainly we have the ability to give the test to 10 million illegals, certainly they have the ability to learn the necessary information in that time (and if they don't then go home).  No, another end play to keep them here for a decade, making employers happy, and then pass additional legislation to make them citizens without normal requirements.  IMHO.
            
            Problem is that I don't trust our legislators OR businesses as far as I can throw them.  This bill, as it stands right now (and yes, it will be changed) will accomplish absolutely nothing except placating the American people while still quietly supporting the illegals and allowing business to make more.  I recognize that this is purely opinion, but be that as it may it is how I see this POS bill.
            
            A final example: illegals have invaded the building trades (where I work) in huge numbers, but almost always in the labor intensive, low paying trades.  Landscaping, framing, clean-up, etc.  Trades where the training and pay are both quite low.  Now tell them they are legal and have at least 15 years; a great many are going to enter the higher skilled trades.  Without need to disappear at a moment's notice they will take the training and become a plumber, electrician or other skilled tradesman, but guess what happens to the average salary when that happens?  The citizen buying a home gets it for a small decrease in cost, the provisional citizen gets a raise and can live with only 2 families per home instead of 4, the ex-tradesman citizen is out of work and on welfare/unemployment while the contractor gets rich.  Seen it too many times to think it isn't going to work that way.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               You make some valid points, Wilderness. Still, most are hyperthetical assumptions although they are supportable based upon past experience.
               
               I have written on Illegal Immigration and the Economy and follow the issue closely. I invite you to give my hub a read when you have a chance.
               
               I will not try to address all of your significant points included in your post but one (your final example from the building trades) has struck me in a particular way because it is a good example of over reliance on unproven arguments against foreign workers.
               
               Wilderness wrote:
               ”A final example: illegals have invaded the building trades (where I work) in huge numbers, but almost always in the labor intensive, low paying trades. Landscaping, framing, clean-up, etc…Without need to disappear at a moment's notice they will take the training and become a plumber, electrician or other skilled tradesman, but guess what happens to the average salary when that happens? The citizen buying a home gets it for a small decrease in cost, the provisional citizen gets a raise and can live with only 2 families per home instead of 4, the ex-tradesman citizen is out of work and on welfare/unemployment while the contractor gets rich.” I have added bold font simply to highlight my talking points.
               
               Guess what happens…when that happens?
               
               You correctly point that the consumer benefits big time. You may characterize is as “a small decrease in cost” but in reality the benefits to the consumer are magnified 11 million fold. The consumer pockets substantial savings from every visit to the supermarket, from every household item purchased, from every trip to a fast food drive-thru, from each and every product that makes its way to market using low wage, labor intense channels. The problem is the public does not always get to see the migrant workers bent over in the fields, or the young men hauling stuff in a warehouse, or the young mothers in the food processing plants. Stats indicate the consumer is a big winner as are other winners like retirees, but that is heading off topic.
               
               I will pass on “the provisional citizen gets a raise and can live with only 2 families per home instead of 4” conceding only that it is mostly a hypothetical, stereotypical assumption. I will say, however, foreign labors are typically hard working, family oriented, and often forced to live for short periods of time in confined spaces.
                
               The claim “the ex-tradesman citizen is out of work and on welfare/unemployment” is perhaps the thorniest issue. The question I ask myself is “what has the ex-tradesman been during these 15 years while the immigrant has been busy honing his own skills and training for his own advancement?” I do not buy into the notion that skilled trades people should be guarantied a lifetime gig at top scale just because they pay dues. In business, companies are challenged every day by new competitors having better, lower cost, or more efficient products. Companies that do not adjust, retool, retrain or modernize often times go out of business. It is the way free markets work and skilled tradesmen are a part of the free market. From my point of view, the ex-tradesmen that did not train himself over a 15 year period for advancement to a higher paying level, as the immigrant did, is responsible for his own “ex” status, unemployment, or welfare.
               
               I am sorry that I skipped over most of the points you made. Most, I notice, are assumptions, predictions, probabilities, and improbabilities. Granted, your conclusions are consistent with past experiences and that is, in this case, a valid but pessimistic forecaster.
               
               Wilderness, I particularly enjoy your well-grounded and well-considered posts. They are among my favorite. I thank you for all of them. Keep them coming.
               

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree with a lot of what you say but take great exception about your comment :
                  
                  "The claim “the ex-tradesman citizen is out of work and on welfare/unemployment” is perhaps the thorniest issue. The question I ask myself is “what has the ex-tradesman been during these 15 years while the immigrant has been busy honing his own skills and training for his own advancement?” I do not buy into the notion that skilled trades people should be guarantied a lifetime gig at top scale just because they pay dues. In business, companies are challenged every day by new competitors having better, lower cost, or more efficient products. Companies that do not adjust, retool, retrain or modernize often times go out of business. It is the way free markets work and skilled tradesmen are a part of the free market. From my point of view, the ex-tradesmen that did not train himself over a 15 year period for advancement to a higher paying level, as the immigrant did, is responsible for his own “ex” status, unemployment, or welfare."
                  I have found as a tradesman with over forty years experience and a business owner for twenty years that the competition with the illegal immigrant labor is becoming an impossible situation. My competition has succumbed to the pressure to use this scenario because "everyone else" does it. You must remember that the standard of living has dropped with the lack of wage increases due to the willingness of the illegal to work at a minimum wage to do the "same" job. I have been on many jobsites where so called skilled illegal workmen have installed things that were substandard and in some cases had to be redone. I will not fault the illegals work ethic as I have seen them roofing on Christmas or cutting grass on Easter. But that does not make them qualified to work skilled jobs just because of their willingness to work longer or harder. I can't comment about union labor as I don't have much contact with it and I am sure there are those that abuse the system they have there. Operating on a legal basis with an established shop and paying all the local and federal requirements with all the liabilities covered it is unfair of others to take in illegal labor to cut those costs on their books and reap the profits associated with it. I think you are way off on this and the attitude you have expressed is a common theme for those who subscribe to a so called "free market" philosophy.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Howdy Mr. Rhamson. I surely hope you are enjoying this weekend.
                     
                     I thank you for addressing my comments. I am well aware of the huge hit labor has suffered during the last twenty years. Believe me, I understand and I am sympathetic to the economic hardships endured by American labor as a whole. While many tend to focus on building “trades,” the same problems plague the nation’s entire labor force to some extent.
                     
                     Fact: We live in a global economy whether we like it or not.
                     
                     Fact: The cost of labor is significantly lower in other parts of the world.
                     
                     Fact: America, as a result, has had to deal with two trends.
                     
                     In the first trend, production has shifted to those markets in the world where labor costs are among the lowest. The compensation earned by US manufacturing workers in 2011 was $35.53/hour. That same year, the rate was $6.48/hour in Mexico and $2.01 in The Philippines. {1}
                     
                     VentureOutsource.com noted “Though manufacturing workers in China are earning more than ever before, average hourly compensation costs were only $1.36 in 2008.” {2} With US workers expecting $35.53/hour and Chinese workers expecting around $1.36/hour, it is not surprising, Mr. Rhamson, most US products are made in China.
                     
                     The Second scenario covers cases where production can not shift so the much more competitive labor forces come to us. Ergo, you acknowledge this reality when you say, “ You must remember that the standard of living has dropped with the lack of wage increases due to the willingness of the illegal to work at a minimum wage to do the ‘same’ job.” The truth is they are use to working for $6.48/hour in Mexico, are attracted by our $35.53 rate, and are happy to work for less. Surprise! Surprise! Obviously, they also have a “willingness” to learn from and respond to the global economy while too many American workers do not. 
                     
                     You also wrote:
                     ”I will not fault the illegals [sic] work ethic as I have seen them roofing on Christmas or cutting grass on Easter. But that does not make them qualified to work skilled jobs just because of their willingness to work longer or harder.”
                     
                     You echo the observations of many others. Foreign workers typically are willing to work harder to learn and to improve their living standards. I can not point to any significant examples to demonstrate that American workers are doing the same. American workers need to face the reality of a mobile workforce willing to work harder at a substantially lower wage and they need to stop focusing on whether those workers are documented. The fact is not all foreign workers are undocumented and not all speak English.
                     
                     You say you are or were a business owner and you admit your problem begins with your competition that increasingly turns their back on over-priced American labor. “Operating on a legal basis with an established shop and paying all the local and federal requirements with all the liabilities covered it is unfair of others to take in illegal labor to cut those costs on their books and reap the profits associated with it.” Obviously, you should not blame your dilemma on the workers when your problem is caused by your competitors. I would expect business owners like yourself to agree on creating a level playing field, hire only documented workers, and base wages on the worker’s level of skill. On the contrary, it seems owners are opting for the lower-wage workers because that is how free market systems work.
                     
                     Finally, I do agree with your summary statement. “The attitude you have expressed is a common theme for those who subscribe to a so called ‘free market.’” I do favor a mostly free market system that is flexible enough to adjust to the one playing out on a global scale. American workers face a future that will not be easy for them by any means. American workers need to adapt to the global marketplace. Jobs will not return to America until her labor force is willing to work harder for less and to accept the need to retrain for advancement. If America can not adapt to the global economy, its labor force may perish.
                     
                     I hope, Mr. Rhamson, you enjoy what is left of your weekend. I hope to do the same.
                     
                     {1} http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ichcc.pdf
                     {2} http://www.ventureoutsource.com/contrac … -costs-ems

                     replyreport
   2. 72

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with the no amnesty to the illegal aliens that have walked over the border and taken jobs that would otherwise be filled by legal residents and nationals. Big business loves this reform so they can fill their workforce with the lowest pay scaled workers and pocket the increased profits that will ensue. The reason why the slime bags on the hill want this is to broaden their voting constituency to include those that voted so strongly in the last election. This is just a further sellout of our country to the greedy business whores and the scum that "WE" have elected. The American worker has no representation and will have to suffer along in part time WalMart jobs or try to get something at the Piglgy-Wiggly store. Let's sidetrack the thought and vilify the unions again.
      
      Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is the only way to get our country back.

      replyreport
4. 82

   Mighty Momposted 9 years ago

   You raise excellent points, as usual, Quill.
   Americans are a bit schizo on the topic, I feel. We rail against the visible but not against the invisible effects of "illegal" immigrants and job offshoring.
   When it works to our financial advantage in terms of cheaper products, we don't mind at all.
   We don't seem to hold the employers responsible at all, whether it's the contractor picking up a cab full of Mexicans on the corner or the farmer hiring undocumented workers to pick their crops.
   We blame the workers.
   Nor do we seem to blame the employers who take "American jobs" overseas. 
   I agree that we do have to adjust to the global economy.
   But honestly, how is ANY American supposed to compete with someone halfway around the world willing to work for $1.32?
   I'm putting this question out there for the unfettered freemarketeers...

   replyreport