immigration reform

[Gerben42]

An illegal act is one that's against the law. An illegal PERSON is one not protected by the law. That's where we get the word "outlaw" from. So an illegal alien is an alien who is not protected. You can rob them, rape them, even kill them, and you won't be breaking the law. Illegal aliens are, by the literal definition, people you think aren't even human enough to be protected by the most basic laws of our society.

 

Everyone should be protected by the law. Even if you are in some country illegally that should not give anyone the right to rob them or kill them. Now THAT is something that should be carved into stone in a constitution.

 

Girl comes here from Somalia. Gets a resident visa, a cruddy but steady job. Eventually, settles down, marries an American citizen, has three kids. She applies for American citizenship.

 

A month goes by, no repsonse. Two months, then six. Meanwhile, she tries to get her Visa renewed, but the government, being the government, loses that too. Day after day, she goes to the INS, where she gets shuffled around. Eventually, it expires.

 

Now, everybody agrees that she should be allowed to be here. She has a job, an American husband, and American kids, but because the INS is such a giant pile of molasses, the forms aren't there.

 

This shouldn't be possible. What the government should do: Fire the people who obviously can't do their job and maybe hire this Somalian lady instead. I mean as mayor if I would hear of such stories I would go through the immigrations department with a HUGE broom. You'll be doing the right thing and if you sell it correctly you'll win popularity too (which unfortunately seems what politics is about now).

[Finch]

5) citizenship is a requirement for property ownership

The U.S. would go bankrupt overnight.  Do you know how much of our property is owned by Japanese, Italians, and so forth?

• do other countries have similar laws regarding foreign ownership? does mexico?
  

This is a subject which many countries struggle with. It's not uncommon to see this type of law elsewhere: the various ways people get round it in some places are to take out a long term lease (rather than buy the property), or to incorporate a company in the country and have the company buy the property.

 

In Jersey, only a very small number of properties are openly available, and as such as extremely expensive and rarely for sale. Otherwise, to buy a property in Jersey you must either be a resident, or you must be bringing a key skill of some sort to the island (e.g. you are moving there to be employed as a teacher, nurse...)

 

In some Swiss cantons it used to be the case that foreign citizens could not buy property. Then this was changed, in Valais for example. Then lots of rich foreigners bought up all the ski chalets. Now they've changed it again in particular bits of the canton to protect the residents.

 

In parts of England, there are desperate problems where locals cannot afford to buy anywhere to live because rich Londoners buy up all the local property as holiday homes. At the other end of the scale, very few English people can afford to live in the best parts of London, because the houses have all been bought up by mega-rich expats (and a few mega-rich non-expat city bankers). Overall, this might be good for the English economy to get these people living here, but it's not good for the individuals who have to cope with a long commute to work each day because they have to live further away.

[Codo]

Some good news on the income distribution front.

 

Congressional Budget Office, May 2007 report says the poorest 20% of Americans have gotten less poor. They had the highest increase in earnings, 78% after inflation, from 1991-2005. The poorest increased their earnings growth much more than the richest 20%

 

Low wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

 

Female-headed poor households incomes doubled.

The median family with children saw an 18% rise in earnings.

 

Yes the poor have not disappeared in America but some progress is being made.

Hi Mike,

 

please just check this:

 

If you earn 100 $ and this increases for big 78 % you have 178 $.

If you have 10.000 $ and this increases for just 18 % you have 11.800 $.

 

Do you think that the gap is getting smaller or wider?

 

I really hope that the gap between the lowest 20 % and the rest is getting smaller but at least your example does not proofe this.

[luke warm]

An illegal act is one that's against the law. An illegal PERSON is one not protected by the law. That's where we get the word "outlaw" from. So an illegal alien is an alien who is not protected. You can rob them, rape them, even kill them, and you won't be breaking the law. Illegal aliens are, by the literal definition, people you think aren't even human enough to be protected by the most basic laws of our society.

 

I can't possibly imagine why that would offend anybody.

you are wrong, your whole argument stems from this faulty premise... the 14th amendment protects citizens and non- alike under the law

Now THAT is something that should be carved into stone in a constitution.

it is

Jimmy, what or which problem are we trying to solve?

Are we trying to stop the west going back to Mexico or trying to hasten it?

it seems that the congress and president are trying to hasten it, at the behest of major corporations who desire a cheaper labor pool... very shortsighted, imo

Are you saying we are being invaded by Mexico and they are trying to take back everything west of the Mississippi?

yes... but mike, i'm not the only one saying it... look again at the quote i provided from Harvard Professor Samuel P, Huntington

This is a subject which many countries struggle with. It's not uncommon to see this type of law elsewhere

yes, my point was that other countries disallow foreign ownership of property.. even mexico, but their laws bear no resemblance to the ones they want us to live by...

[Winstonm]

it seems that the congress and president are trying to hasten it, at the behest of major corporations who desire a cheaper labor pool... very shortsighted, imo

 

 

I don't know, Jimmy, but this sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory. The fact that it is true should in no way detract from the derision it receives, though, as everyone knows there is no such thing.

[Winstonm]

you are wrong, your whole argument stems from this faulty premise... the 14th amendment protects citizens and non- alike under the law

 

Unless you are classified as an "enemy combattant", then you are at the mercy of the military and have no rights at all - or if the president declares a national emergency and institutes martial law - then we are all screwed.

[hrothgar]

it seems that the congress and president are trying to hasten it, at the behest of major corporations who desire a cheaper labor pool... very shortsighted, imo

I certainly agree that migrant laborer's are extremely important for a number of industries. Agricultural work, landscaping, food service, construction, and the like all make extensive use of migrant labor. These industries are actively lobbying in favor of various guest worker programs. At the top end of the scale, a lot of the tech and service companies are doing precisely the same thing with respect to increasing the available pool H1B Visas.

 

As with anything else, there will be winner's and losers from this all. The primary winners will be foreign workers who will capture higher wages than they could otherwise receive and domestic consumer who will enjoy lower prices. The primary losers are local workers who will face downward pressure on wages. This is part and parcel of that whole market economy that so many people love so very much...

 

For what its worth, while I am occasionally sharply critical of market economies, this isn't one of those areas where I have issues. My criticisms of the market are based on well known examples of market imperfections. This is an example where a competitive market is behaving in precisely the way that it is intended and I think that its a mistake to try to play King Knut and order the waves to stand still. As I noted earlier, you aren't going to be able to stop migrant labor so long as massive wage gaps exist.

 

Coincidentally, I found the following article on Salon this morning

 

In the "age of migration," a period roughly coinciding with the years 1870-1910, massive flows of workers migrated across the globe. The growth in the labor force due to migration in the United States alone was 21 percent, while countries like Norway, Sweden, Italy, and Ireland saw their labor forces decline by 22, 18, 29 and a whopping 41 percent, respectively.

 

The fact that an Italian worker could earn four times as much for equivalent work in the United States as he could in Italy is thought to be a key factor explaining that mobility. Big wage-gap differentials create pressure to move.

 

So here's a little tidbit, derived from "Let Their People Come: Breaking the Gridlock on Global Labor Mobility" a monograph by Lant Pritchett, an economist currently working at the World Bank. Wage gap differentials between rich and poor countries today are at least twice as great as those between the U.S. and its primary sources of immigrants during the age of migration. The pressure to move is greater now than ever before.

 

    The wage gaps in the world today are at historically high levels... it appears that the wage differentials that set in motion the mass migrations in the late nineteenth century are substantially smaller than the current gaps in real wages between potential migration partners.

 

    If a wage gap of 4 to 1 between the United States and Italy in 1870 was sufficient to create a migration that reduced population by 30 percent over a forty-year period -- even when transport costs were higher, travel was more dangerous, and communication with loved ones left behind was much more expensive and less reliable -- then it is at least plausible that the existing wage differences indicate potential forces for substantially larger labor movements than those currently observed.

 

The world is extraordinarily richer today that it was a hundred years ago. But that wealth has not been evenly distributed, globally. Far from it. Income disparities between countries far overwhelm disparities within countries.

 

Economist Dani Rodrik tipped off How the World Works to the existence of Pritchett's monograph in his blog. I've only read the introduction and first chapter so far, but it looks like an essential source of information and ideas on how to think about the massively complex and controversial topic of labor migration, albeit from a stance that the majority of commentators on the issue will likely find politically unfeasible. I can't yet say whether any of Pritchett's policy proposals, which purport to address both the political opposition to labor migration and the inevitability of its happening, make sense. But just the initial contribution of historical perspective seems enough to chew on for now. As long as global inequities in the distribution of wealth continue to rise so to will the pressure on people to move around the globe. Securing borders against that flow doesn't seem like a very good long term bet.

 

-- Andrew Leonard

 

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

Some good news on the income distribution front.

Yes the poor have not disappeared in America but some progress is being made.

 

Mike, you really need to stop taking the red pills. Give yourself a month clean and sober and then read this....

 

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows

     

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

Published: March 29, 2007

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

 

The Roaring 2000s The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

 

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

 

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

[mike777]

Some good news on the income distribution front.

 

Congressional Budget Office, May 2007 report says the poorest 20% of Americans have gotten less poor. They had the highest increase in earnings, 78% after inflation, from 1991-2005. The poorest increased their earnings growth much more than the richest 20%

 

Low wage households with children had incomes after inflation that were more than one third higher in 2005 than in 1991.

 

Female-headed poor households incomes doubled.

The median family with children saw an 18% rise in earnings.

 

Yes the poor have not disappeared in America but some progress is being made.

Hi Mike,

 

please just check this:

 

If you earn 100 $ and this increases for big 78 % you have 178 $.

If you have 10.000 $ and this increases for just 18 % you have 11.800 $.

 

Do you think that the gap is getting smaller or wider?

 

I really hope that the gap between the lowest 20 % and the rest is getting smaller but at least your example does not proofe this.

smaller.

 

Why?

 

 

If the income of someone goes from 10 billion to 20 billion or if the poors' inflation adjusted income goes from 5000 to 20,000 whose life has improved more?

 

Amazing how a gap increase of 10 billion for the rich, yet the poor get a better life and good news. Simple. Let's focus on what's really important, not gaps

If you wish to focus on gaps, so be it.

[mike777]

Some good news on the income distribution front.

Yes the poor have not disappeared in America but some progress is being made.

 

Mike, you really need to stop taking the red pills. Give yourself a month clean and sober and then read this....

 

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows

     

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

Published: March 29, 2007

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

 

The Roaring 2000s The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

 

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

 

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

Winston if you believe the poor are worse off than in 1991 I can doing nothing but take that other pill in the Matrix. If you want to believe that gaps are more important than simply improving the economy, ok. btw check out the term Utility. :D

[hrothgar]

Amazing how a gap increase of 10 billion for the rich, yet the poor get a better life and good news. Simple. Let's focus on what's really important, not gaps

 

If you wish to focus on gaps, so be it.

Nearly all of the psychological studies show that individuals are much more concerned with relative wage differentials than their absolute income. This might not be logical, but it appears to be hardwired in folk's brains... American's are very concerned whether they are keeping up with the Jones.

 

For what its worth chimpanzees exhibit exactly the same behavior. If you give one chimp a banana and give a second chimp 20 banana's the chimp that got one gets VERY upset.

[Al_U_Card]

you are wrong, your whole argument stems from this faulty premise... the 14th amendment protects citizens and non- alike under the law

 

Unless you are classified as an "enemy combattant", then you are at the mercy of the military and have no rights at all - or if the president declares a national emergency and institutes martial law - then we are all screwed.

Have you been gazing into that crystal ball agian?

[jtfanclub]

An illegal act is one that's against the law.  An illegal PERSON is one not protected by the law.  That's where we get the word "outlaw" from.  So an illegal alien is an alien who is not protected.  You can rob them, rape them, even kill them, and you won't be breaking the law.  Illegal aliens are, by the literal definition, people you think aren't even human enough to be protected by the most basic laws of our society. 

 

I can't possibly imagine why that would offend anybody.

you are wrong, your whole argument stems from this faulty premise... the 14th amendment protects citizens and non- alike under the law

Said by somebody who wants to change the 14th Amendment.

[jtfanclub]

This shouldn't be possible. What the government should do: Fire the people who obviously can't do their job and maybe hire this Somalian lady instead. I mean as mayor if I would hear of such stories I would go through the immigrations department with a HUGE broom. You'll be doing the right thing and if you sell it correctly you'll win popularity too (which unfortunately seems what politics is about now).

Wouldn't help much. Minneapolis-St. Paul has hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The INS has a small office here, which spends most of its time trying to prevent open warfare between the Hmong immigrants and the 'natives'. They're completely overwhelmed.

[luke warm]

~~~ Coincidentally, I found the following article on Salon this morning

 

~~~As long as global inequities in the distribution of wealth continue to rise so to will the pressure on people to move around the globe. Securing borders against that flow doesn't seem like a very good long term bet.

 

-- Andrew Leonard

if he's right then the only logical result is one world government, which i suspect is something that george the 41st has always wanted and has instilled in his son(s)...

it seems that the congress and president are trying to hasten it, at the behest of major corporations who desire a cheaper labor pool... very shortsighted, imo

 

I don't know, Jimmy, but this sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory. The fact that it is true should in no way detract from the derision it receives, though, as everyone knows there is no such thing.

maybe you're right, maybe it is a conspiracy in the sense that those in power want the reconquista to take place and are aided by those who have other agendas

An illegal act is one that's against the law.  An illegal PERSON is one not protected by the law.  That's where we get the word "outlaw" from.  So an illegal alien is an alien who is not protected.  You can rob them, rape them, even kill them, and you won't be breaking the law.  Illegal aliens are, by the literal definition, people you think aren't even human enough to be protected by the most basic laws of our society. 

 

I can't possibly imagine why that would offend anybody.

you are wrong, your whole argument stems from this faulty premise... the 14th amendment protects citizens and non- alike under the law

Said by somebody who wants to change the 14th Amendment.

whether or not i want to change it has no bearing on the fact that your argument is faulty... you reached a conclusion based on an erroneous premise, period

 

fwiw i don't want to change the 14th, i want to enforce it... if i get stopped by a state trooper here i'd better have license, registration, and proof of insurnace... i deal with state agencies as part of my job, and some of those agencies are in the public safety realm (state, parochial, and municipal police, etc)... i know what their standing orders are re: this and other cases

[jtfanclub]

whether or not i want to change it has no bearing on the fact that your argument is faulty... you reached a conclusion based on an erroneous premise, period

First of all, your origninal post recommended changing the 14th admendment, remember?

 

Second of all, the 14th amendement doesn't prevent the government from making people illegal. In fact, we still do it for bail jumpers, where the bounty hunters are allowed to violate a number of their basic rights in order to bring them in.

 

And third of all, what the law says is moot. If you start referring to homosexuals as 'flammables' and how horrible they are, they're probably going to still be offended even though actually setting them on fire is against the law.

[luke warm]

whether or not i want to change it has no bearing on the fact that your argument is faulty... you reached a conclusion based on an erroneous premise, period

First of all, your origninal post recommended changing the 14th admendment, remember?

i don't think that's what i said... my original post included:

finally, what's wrong with any of these?

~~~~~

3) only children born to u.s. citizens will obtain citizenship status

to which richard replied, and i answered:

3.  This requires amending the US Constitution

• well if you mean to use the 14th ammendment, it needs to be used fully... by that i simply mean that the 14th says that all people, citizens or non-, are treated equally under the law.. presently, in many cases, that isn't true... i don't know what happens in your part of the country, but in the south illegal immigrants are often let go when they break, for example, traffic laws...
  

my point is that the 14th amendment is not being followed now... follow it or repeal it, do you agree?

Second of all, the 14th amendement doesn't prevent the government from making people illegal.  In fact, we still do it for bail jumpers, where the bounty hunters are allowed to violate a number of their basic rights in order to bring them in.

this is the 2nd time you've made this statement... *people* aren't illegal, per se... i did a dictionary search for 'illegal person' and came up with, "There are no dictionary entries for illegal person" ... you earlier stated:

An illegal PERSON is one not protected by the law.  That's where we get the word "outlaw" from.  So an illegal alien is an alien who is not protected.  You can rob them, rape them, even kill them, and you won't be breaking the law.  Illegal aliens are, by the literal definition, people you think aren't even human enough to be protected by the most basic laws of our society.

this is simply not true and i don't know where you get it... first of all, there's no such thing as an illegal person... how would you define the term? dictionary.com defines illegal alien as:

 

1. a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.

2. a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, esp. a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.

 

which jives pretty well with my definition in an earlier post: "words have meanings, and words that modify one another also have meanings... an alien, in this context, is one not native to this country... illegal means against the law... so 'illegal alien' simply means a non-native who lives here against the law..."

 

as for your other, to me ridiculous, assertions can you site some source that backs up your contentions that an "illegal person" (whatever that may be) is "... one not protected by the law..." and "...You can rob them, rape them, even kill them, and you won't be breaking the law...?" surely you don't believe such a thing is possible, or that there is any legal or otherwise definition that agrees with you.. as for this statement you made:

"Illegal aliens are, by the literal definition, people you think aren't even human enough to be protected by the most basic laws of our society."

what "literal definition" are you speaking of? where is it found? it sounds as if you are just spouting off things with no thought to helping others understand your reasoning

And third of all, what the law says is moot.  If you start referring to homosexuals as 'flammables' and how horrible they are, they're probably going to still be offended even though actually setting them on fire is against the law.

i'm sorry but this is nonsensical to me... perhaps you can rephrase?

[hrothgar]

Now for a scholarly look at reconquista but a similarly disturbing conclusion, there is Harvard Professor Samuel P, Huntington, Chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies , who wrote The Hispanic Challenge in Public Policy Magazine, April, 2004: "[t]he persistence of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two people, two cultures, and two languages... The United States ignores this challenge at its peril... Mexican immigration differs from past immigration due to a combination of six factors: contiguity, scale, illegality, regional concentration, [in the American Southwest], persistence, and historical presence... Demographically, socially, and culturally, the reconquista (re-conquest) of the Southwest United States by Mexican immigrants is well underway."

Since you decided to drag Huntington into the discussion, it might be appropriate to consider some of this other quotes. Here's one that made its way to the Washington Post's Op-Ed page this morning:

 

"America was created as a Protestant society just as and for some of the same reasons Pakistan and Israel were created as Muslim and Jewish societies in the 20th century."

 

What a load of crap...

 

As I've noted before, I have a great deal of sympathy for Huntington's whole Clash of Civilizations model. However, I think that the fracture points fall in very different places. I certainly don't buy into his ridiculous fetishes surrounding different Abrahamic sects...

[luke warm]

"America was created as a Protestant society just as and for some of the same reasons Pakistan and Israel were created as Muslim and Jewish societies in the 20th century."

 

What a load of crap...

even if true (the load of crap thing), it has no bearing on his reconquista remarks... and even if both remarks are loads of crap they have nothing to do with the illogical position jtfanclub took

[hrothgar]

"America was created as a Protestant society just as and for some of the same reasons Pakistan and Israel were created as Muslim and Jewish societies in the 20th century."

 

What a load of crap...

even if true (the load of crap thing), it has no bearing on his reconquista remarks... and even if both remarks are loads of crap they have nothing to do with the illogical position jtfanclub took

Personally, if I observe an individual making factually suspect biased statements in a given area, I get very suspicious about their pronouncements in other (related) areas.

 

I don't believe that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, let alone a Protestant one. I had hoped that the country had outgrown this type of anti Catholic hysteria half a century back.

[Winstonm]

mike777,May 24 2007, 08:01 AM]

Winston if you believe the poor are worse off than in 1991 I can doing nothing but take that other pill in the Matrix. If you want to believe that gaps are more important than simply improving the economy, ok. btw check out the term Utility.

 

 

The cost of survival has more effect on the poor than rich - if economic growth and wage growth is less than inflation, where is the benefit?

 

A 0.4 percent rise in food prices, coupled with a 2.4 percent jump in energy prices, pushed the CPI up by 0.4 percent in April. This brings the annual rate of increase over the last three months to 5.7 percent, approximately 2 percentage points above the rate of wage growth over this period.

 

And, of course, the poor never get sick or need a doctor.

 

August 29, 2006

 

THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH

 

Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage.  “The number of uninsured Americans reached an all-time high in 2005,” said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  “It is sobering that 5.4 million more people lacked health insurance in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001, primarily because of the erosion of employer-based insurance.”

 

 

So what is the choice: fill up the car to go to work; put food on the table; buy health insurance. I'm betting the first two take priority when you cannot afford all three. For the first time since the great depression, the U.S. has a negative savings rate - and it is growing. This is a positive?

 

 

The argument has been made that a rising tide lifts all boats; but at the same time, if you don't own a boat a rising tide makes it damned difficult to keep your head above water.