Immigration, the US elites and the political left

[後援会]

I would think that the "elites" would prefer using the immigrants as a scapegoat for adopting a police state with an East German emigration policy. I don't understand what supposed fiscal conservatives find so repulsive about an unrestricted labor market, other than the darker complexion of the labor supply. If you are so bothered by the inability of domestic laborers to compete with imported laborers, then perhaps it is time to remove the artificial price supports for domestic labor.

I don't think so-called "fiscal conservatives" find so much repulsive about an unrestricted labor market. After all, they finally got the Republican platform to promote a guest-worker program.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, if you want to stop the next wave of illegal immigration, make it impossible for them to get a job. Usually earning money for their family is the foremost thing in their mind, not citizenship or benefits. Sure, they may wonder how the hell they will get healthcare, but to think they come for the healthcare is a ridiculous way of looking at things. I just don't see how enacting a touchback provision will make it less likely for the next wave to occur. If you want to stop illegal immigration, stop the pull which in 95% of cases is jobs (the other 5% being grandma and grandpa whose naturalized children didn't want to pay the fees to immigrate them here legally which is also ridiculous).

Haven't you been reading what I posted? I never suggested they came here for healthcare, you are the one who brought up the safety net and I responded to that. I have been talking about jobs and everify in practically every post I have madei n this thread, including this one on the previous page:

The real issue isn't about border security as there are limits to what you can do there and that is in large measure a false flag at best at this point. The real issue is over internal enforcement and removing the Jobs incentive. Jobs are what brought many of the illegals into the country and the best proof we have of that is the effect that the recession has had on the flow of illegals. Legal immigration needs to be simiplified and a guest worker plan of sorts created, but the primary aspect of any plan has to be workplace enforcement.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would think that the "elites" would prefer using the immigrants as a scapegoat for adopting a police state with an East German emigration policy. I don't understand what supposed fiscal conservatives find so repulsive about an unrestricted labor market, other than the darker complexion of the labor supply. If you are so bothered by the inability of domestic laborers to compete with imported laborers, then perhaps it is time to remove the artificial price supports for domestic labor.

I don't think so-called "fiscal conservatives" find so much repulsive about an unrestricted labor market. After all, they finally got the Republican platform to promote a guest-worker program.

The problem with SPC's view of this issue is that he doesn't embrace a traditional view of national sovereignty. For those who do like myself, allowing immigration laws to be ignored constitutes the aberation and distortion of the market that wouldn't exist if those laws were enforced, something which every sovereign nation reserves the right to do. For SPC and most libertarians, the immigration laws and national sovereignty are the distorting influence.

A guest worker program is fine, and even a necessity, as long as E-Verify is coupled with it. They support and sustain each other.

[Sbane]

Yankee, if you want to stop the next wave of illegal immigration, make it impossible for them to get a job. Usually earning money for their family is the foremost thing in their mind, not citizenship or benefits. Sure, they may wonder how the hell they will get healthcare, but to think they come for the healthcare is a ridiculous way of looking at things. I just don't see how enacting a touchback provision will make it less likely for the next wave to occur. If you want to stop illegal immigration, stop the pull which in 95% of cases is jobs (the other 5% being grandma and grandpa whose naturalized children didn't want to pay the fees to immigrate them here legally which is also ridiculous).

Haven't you been reading what I posted? I never suggested they came here for healthcare, you are the one who brought up the safety net and I responded to that. I have been talking about jobs and everify in practically every post I have madei n this thread, including this one on the previous page:

The real issue isn't about border security as there are limits to what you can do there and that is in large measure a false flag at best at this point. The real issue is over internal enforcement and removing the Jobs incentive. Jobs are what brought many of the illegals into the country and the best proof we have of that is the effect that the recession has had on the flow of illegals. Legal immigration needs to be simiplified and a guest worker plan of sorts created, but the primary aspect of any plan has to be workplace enforcement.

I think you misunderstood me, which is why I thought you were saying what you weren't leading to my response. What I was trying to say is that if we force people to go back to their country before coming back again, they would lose whatever job they were working at. They would then be able to come back into the US legally, and be eligible for social services, and might not be able to find a job. To discourage this, my plan to just not let them be citizens for 10 years but still be able to stay and work in their community makes much more sense. I don't care what is politically viable or not.

[SPC]

I would think that the "elites" would prefer using the immigrants as a scapegoat for adopting a police state with an East German emigration policy. I don't understand what supposed fiscal conservatives find so repulsive about an unrestricted labor market, other than the darker complexion of the labor supply. If you are so bothered by the inability of domestic laborers to compete with imported laborers, then perhaps it is time to remove the artificial price supports for domestic labor.

I don't think so-called "fiscal conservatives" find so much repulsive about an unrestricted labor market. After all, they finally got the Republican platform to promote a guest-worker program.

The problem with SPC's view of this issue is that he doesn't embrace a traditional view of national sovereignty. For those who do like myself, allowing immigration laws to be ignored constitutes the aberation and distortion of the market that wouldn't exist if those laws were enforced, something which every sovereign nation reserves the right to do. For SPC and most libertarians, the immigration laws and national sovereignty are the distorting influence.

A guest worker program is fine, and even a necessity, as long as E-Verify is coupled with it. They support and sustain each other.

By this reasoning, do you consider free trade with other countries to be an aberation and distortion of the market that wouldn't exist if protectionist tariffs were enacted/enforced?

[後援会]

The problem with SPC's view of this issue is that he doesn't embrace a traditional view of national sovereignty. For those who do like myself, allowing immigration laws to be ignored constitutes the aberation and distortion of the market that wouldn't exist if those laws were enforced, something which every sovereign nation reserves the right to do. For SPC and most libertarians, the immigration laws and national sovereignty are the distorting influence.

A guest worker program is fine, and even a necessity, as long as E-Verify is coupled with it. They support and sustain each other.

I don't think immigration laws should be ignored. I just don't think they should really exist.

My only real beef with massive immigration is the distorting political effect (aka giving 10 million foreigners the right to vote), but I would definitely support a completely unrestricted guest worker program with no birthright citizenship.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would think that the "elites" would prefer using the immigrants as a scapegoat for adopting a police state with an East German emigration policy. I don't understand what supposed fiscal conservatives find so repulsive about an unrestricted labor market, other than the darker complexion of the labor supply. If you are so bothered by the inability of domestic laborers to compete with imported laborers, then perhaps it is time to remove the artificial price supports for domestic labor.

I don't think so-called "fiscal conservatives" find so much repulsive about an unrestricted labor market. After all, they finally got the Republican platform to promote a guest-worker program.

The problem with SPC's view of this issue is that he doesn't embrace a traditional view of national sovereignty. For those who do like myself, allowing immigration laws to be ignored constitutes the aberation and distortion of the market that wouldn't exist if those laws were enforced, something which every sovereign nation reserves the right to do. For SPC and most libertarians, the immigration laws and national sovereignty are the distorting influence.

A guest worker program is fine, and even a necessity, as long as E-Verify is coupled with it. They support and sustain each other.

By this reasoning, do you consider free trade with other countries to be an aberation and distortion of the market that wouldn't exist if protectionist tariffs were enacted/enforced?

Of course not, because the gov't is setting an economic policy that it views as best to ensure prosperty and growth. Even under free trade they are still enforcing safety standards, checking for dirty bombs in containers, etc etc. It is not a free-for-all and they are still invoking sovereign rights to regulate and control what comes in, for the safety of the people, even in a state of free trade.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem with SPC's view of this issue is that he doesn't embrace a traditional view of national sovereignty. For those who do like myself, allowing immigration laws to be ignored constitutes the aberation and distortion of the market that wouldn't exist if those laws were enforced, something which every sovereign nation reserves the right to do. For SPC and most libertarians, the immigration laws and national sovereignty are the distorting influence.

A guest worker program is fine, and even a necessity, as long as E-Verify is coupled with it. They support and sustain each other.

I don't think immigration laws should be ignored. I just don't think they should really exist.

My only real beef with massive immigration is the distorting political effect (aka giving 10 million foreigners the right to vote), but I would definitely support a completely unrestricted guest worker program with no birthright citizenship.

The problem is that a massive influx of immigrants all at once would overwhelm both are economy's ability to absorb them and provide jobs for them (thus leading to the wage depression and poverty amongst those at the lowest economic rungs both those already here and those streaming in), and also the ability to screen them for terrorists and other persons who pose a risk to public safety because of criminal history, diseases that could start a pendemic, etc etc.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, if you want to stop the next wave of illegal immigration, make it impossible for them to get a job. Usually earning money for their family is the foremost thing in their mind, not citizenship or benefits. Sure, they may wonder how the hell they will get healthcare, but to think they come for the healthcare is a ridiculous way of looking at things. I just don't see how enacting a touchback provision will make it less likely for the next wave to occur. If you want to stop illegal immigration, stop the pull which in 95% of cases is jobs (the other 5% being grandma and grandpa whose naturalized children didn't want to pay the fees to immigrate them here legally which is also ridiculous).

Haven't you been reading what I posted? I never suggested they came here for healthcare, you are the one who brought up the safety net and I responded to that. I have been talking about jobs and everify in practically every post I have madei n this thread, including this one on the previous page:

The real issue isn't about border security as there are limits to what you can do there and that is in large measure a false flag at best at this point. The real issue is over internal enforcement and removing the Jobs incentive. Jobs are what brought many of the illegals into the country and the best proof we have of that is the effect that the recession has had on the flow of illegals. Legal immigration needs to be simiplified and a guest worker plan of sorts created, but the primary aspect of any plan has to be workplace enforcement.

I think you misunderstood me, which is why I thought you were saying what you weren't leading to my response. What I was trying to say is that if we force people to go back to their country before coming back again, they would lose whatever job they were working at. They would then be able to come back into the US legally, and be eligible for social services, and might not be able to find a job. To discourage this, my plan to just not let them be citizens for 10 years but still be able to stay and work in their community makes much more sense. I don't care what is politically viable or not.

Well one would hope that by time they are ready to come back, that jobs would be more plentifull then they are now. Perhaps you could create a program where these people could be matched up with new employers.

[後援会]

The problem is that a massive influx of immigrants all at once would overwhelm both are economy's ability to absorb them and provide jobs for them (thus leading to the wage depression and poverty amongst those at the lowest economic rungs both those already here and those streaming in), and also the ability to screen them for terrorists and other persons who pose a risk to public safety because of criminal history, diseases that could start a pendemic, etc etc.

I doubt that a huge number of immigrants would flood if there weren't enough jobs for them. After all, there are no jobs in America today. And Mexican immigrants are moving back to Mexico.

Plus, people illegally immigrate because they can't do so legally. I'm pretty sure a lot less people would sneak across the border (through evil people/drug traffickers) if they could go to the US Consulate, get a quick background check, and be allowed into the country.

[Sbane]

Yankee, if you want to stop the next wave of illegal immigration, make it impossible for them to get a job. Usually earning money for their family is the foremost thing in their mind, not citizenship or benefits. Sure, they may wonder how the hell they will get healthcare, but to think they come for the healthcare is a ridiculous way of looking at things. I just don't see how enacting a touchback provision will make it less likely for the next wave to occur. If you want to stop illegal immigration, stop the pull which in 95% of cases is jobs (the other 5% being grandma and grandpa whose naturalized children didn't want to pay the fees to immigrate them here legally which is also ridiculous).

Haven't you been reading what I posted? I never suggested they came here for healthcare, you are the one who brought up the safety net and I responded to that. I have been talking about jobs and everify in practically every post I have madei n this thread, including this one on the previous page:

The real issue isn't about border security as there are limits to what you can do there and that is in large measure a false flag at best at this point. The real issue is over internal enforcement and removing the Jobs incentive. Jobs are what brought many of the illegals into the country and the best proof we have of that is the effect that the recession has had on the flow of illegals. Legal immigration needs to be simiplified and a guest worker plan of sorts created, but the primary aspect of any plan has to be workplace enforcement.

I think you misunderstood me, which is why I thought you were saying what you weren't leading to my response. What I was trying to say is that if we force people to go back to their country before coming back again, they would lose whatever job they were working at. They would then be able to come back into the US legally, and be eligible for social services, and might not be able to find a job. To discourage this, my plan to just not let them be citizens for 10 years but still be able to stay and work in their community makes much more sense. I don't care what is politically viable or not.

Well one would hope that by time they are ready to come back, that jobs would be more plentifull then they are now. Perhaps you could create a program where these people could be matched up with new employers.

Or you just let them stay in the US with that alternative visa system for 10 years I was talking about. Then maybe they become eligible for a green card and then naturalization 5 years after that.

[後援会]

Or you just let them stay in the US with that alternative visa system for 10 years I was talking about. Then maybe they become eligible for a green card and then naturalization 5 years after that.

I don't think I could even support that. Limitless guest-worker program: sure. But there would probably be huge problems in governance if we handed citizenship to millions and millions of mostly lower-class immigrants.

[SPC]

Or you just let them stay in the US with that alternative visa system for 10 years I was talking about. Then maybe they become eligible for a green card and then naturalization 5 years after that.

I don't think I could even support that. Limitless guest-worker program: sure. But there would probably be huge problems in governance if we handed citizenship to millions and millions of mostly lower-class immigrants.

I'm torn on this as well. The counterpoint to the bolded text is that failure to do so will lead to blowback when their birthright citizen children exact vengeance at the ballot box on those that disenfranchised their parents for political reasons.

[freepcrusher]

     I find the politics and implications of immigration into the US fascinating.  To me it seems one issue on which the elites and the political left see eye to eye on.  Basically both the financial/political elite is in favor mass immigration into the US, and so is the political left, by and large.
    Sure there are some differences.  The political left would like more immigration, a broad amnesty etc, etc. and some elements of the elite class isn't quite as in favor of all of this, but basically the elites in general support the overall vision of allowing over one million people to come to the US year after year, for ever and ever.  The political left, liberated from its old ties to unions and the white working class, is justifiably euphoric over this gigantic political gift of voter replacement, seeing whats happening in California as a blue print for the future of the whole country, the transformation of the US into a sort of left leaning Brazil of the north as I like to call it.
    Still, its fascinating that on this fundamental issue, the elites are on the side of the left, or is it the left on the side of the elites?  Either way, to me it calls into question the idea of the right wing as being in the ascendency, and the left on the defensive.  Looks more like the other way around IMHO.  Perhaps I've been studying European politics too much, where issues of race, national identity etc. are much more in the foreground.
   Concerning Romney, I realize that he's been endorsed  by some actual immigration restrictionists, but to my knowledge, he hasn't called for any reduction in overall legal immigration, birthright citizenship reform (hey, how come on that one issue the political left rejects what other countries do in many cases?) or any big fundamental changes that would alter the ongoing Brazilification of the US.  The right wing approach is one championed by Virgil Goode, not Romney.   Also, it is true that about half of the GOP caucus, most of whom would support tax and spending policies that the elite would feel at home with, are in fact immigration reductionists, but the higher up the GOP leadership ladder one goes the convergence with pro-immigration attitudes increases.

Define "elites."

As a member of the left I would like to point out that many of us are not in favor of 'mass immigration' but rather immigration policies that acknowledge the basic human rights of all people. Whether or not that results in increased immigration rates is of little importance to me.

I agree... mostly.  I think we should have an immigration policy that respects the human rights of everyone within our borders.  I think it is disingenuous to benefit from cheap labor and then treat that same labor like animals.

Concerning Romney, I realize that he's been using cheap illegal alien labor... except during campaigns.

I fixed your quote for you.  Anyone that has lived in a border state knows that there are big money right wing interests that do everything they can to perpetuate the status quo.  They love having illegal aliens here working for peanuts in unsafe conditions and they certainly don't want to see those people getting visas and rights.

sounds like some kind of peter brimelow conspiracy theory.

[Sbane]

Or you just let them stay in the US with that alternative visa system for 10 years I was talking about. Then maybe they become eligible for a green card and then naturalization 5 years after that.

I don't think I could even support that. Limitless guest-worker program: sure. But there would probably be huge problems in governance if we handed citizenship to millions and millions of mostly lower-class immigrants.

I'm torn on this as well. The counterpoint to the bolded text is that failure to do so will lead to blowback when their birthright citizen children exact vengeance at the ballot box on those that disenfranchised their parents for political reasons.

You are absolutely right SPC. Hispanics don't vote 70-30 Dem because they will get benefits, they vote that way because they think the Republicans are trying to go after them. Look at how Hispanics voted in 2004. I think those numbers are certainly possible even if they are a heavily working class demographic. Plus it's kind of messed up to have guest workers working here, paying taxes here, but never having a chance to sound their opinion about policy. I'm fine with not letting them vote right when they come into the country obviously, but creating a permanent underclass doesn't appeal to me either.

[後援会]

Or you just let them stay in the US with that alternative visa system for 10 years I was talking about. Then maybe they become eligible for a green card and then naturalization 5 years after that.

I don't think I could even support that. Limitless guest-worker program: sure. But there would probably be huge problems in governance if we handed citizenship to millions and millions of mostly lower-class immigrants.

I'm torn on this as well. The counterpoint to the bolded text is that failure to do so will lead to blowback when their birthright citizen children exact vengeance at the ballot box on those that disenfranchised their parents for political reasons.

You are absolutely right SPC. Hispanics don't vote 70-30 Dem because they will get benefits, they vote that way because they think the Republicans are trying to go after them. Look at how Hispanics voted in 2004. I think those numbers are certainly possible even if they are a heavily working class demographic. Plus it's kind of messed up to have guest workers working here, paying taxes here, but never having a chance to sound their opinion about policy. I'm fine with not letting them vote right when they come into the country obviously, but creating a permanent underclass doesn't appeal to me either.

I don't think we'll have a permanent underclass. After all, it's what Singapore has in place. And Singapore is a remarkably egalitarian society. Because most of them won't be permanent residents. They'll remit money back to their families, pumping capital into their home economies. And as their home nation's economy naturally closes the gap with ours, they'll probably move back and be replaced by immigrants from another country more in need of those remittances.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, if you want to stop the next wave of illegal immigration, make it impossible for them to get a job. Usually earning money for their family is the foremost thing in their mind, not citizenship or benefits. Sure, they may wonder how the hell they will get healthcare, but to think they come for the healthcare is a ridiculous way of looking at things. I just don't see how enacting a touchback provision will make it less likely for the next wave to occur. If you want to stop illegal immigration, stop the pull which in 95% of cases is jobs (the other 5% being grandma and grandpa whose naturalized children didn't want to pay the fees to immigrate them here legally which is also ridiculous).

Haven't you been reading what I posted? I never suggested they came here for healthcare, you are the one who brought up the safety net and I responded to that. I have been talking about jobs and everify in practically every post I have madei n this thread, including this one on the previous page:

The real issue isn't about border security as there are limits to what you can do there and that is in large measure a false flag at best at this point. The real issue is over internal enforcement and removing the Jobs incentive. Jobs are what brought many of the illegals into the country and the best proof we have of that is the effect that the recession has had on the flow of illegals. Legal immigration needs to be simiplified and a guest worker plan of sorts created, but the primary aspect of any plan has to be workplace enforcement.

I think you misunderstood me, which is why I thought you were saying what you weren't leading to my response. What I was trying to say is that if we force people to go back to their country before coming back again, they would lose whatever job they were working at. They would then be able to come back into the US legally, and be eligible for social services, and might not be able to find a job. To discourage this, my plan to just not let them be citizens for 10 years but still be able to stay and work in their community makes much more sense. I don't care what is politically viable or not.

Well one would hope that by time they are ready to come back, that jobs would be more plentifull then they are now. Perhaps you could create a program where these people could be matched up with new employers.

Or you just let them stay in the US with that alternative visa system for 10 years I was talking about. Then maybe they become eligible for a green card and then naturalization 5 years after that.

I will never support a plan that puts people who willing and intentionally violated immigration law ahead of those who adhered to it or did there level best to try and comply with it. Either we create an exit amnesty or they will be attritioned out by E-verify. Reforming Legal immigration to make it easier, especially the highly skilled immigrants, a guest worker program so the produce doesn't rot in the fields, a Dream Act with reasonable standards and safeguards so that the kids aren't punished for something they had no control over, all that I am fine with.

I have no problem with using the guest worker program as a consideration for future citizenship of its participants. It won't be an automatic thing though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What we have is a permenent underclass right now with all the illegals being used as slave labor essentially. I fail to see how a guest worker program is going to be worse then that and without a guest worker program, the employers will have incentive (future administrations will probably not be as aggressive on enforcing those not in compliance with E-verify) to hire and encourage future illegal immigration. To stop that you have to toughen enforcement regime on the employers (enact and enforce E-verify) and remove the incentive (guest worker program). You can police the employers that way, ensure that worker safety, minimum wage and all that stuff is being complied with.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Or you just let them stay in the US with that alternative visa system for 10 years I was talking about. Then maybe they become eligible for a green card and then naturalization 5 years after that.

I don't think I could even support that. Limitless guest-worker program: sure. But there would probably be huge problems in governance if we handed citizenship to millions and millions of mostly lower-class immigrants.

I'm torn on this as well. The counterpoint to the bolded text is that failure to do so will lead to blowback when their birthright citizen children exact vengeance at the ballot box on those that disenfranchised their parents for political reasons.

You are absolutely right SPC. Hispanics don't vote 70-30 Dem because they will get benefits, they vote that way because they think the Republicans are trying to go after them. Look at how Hispanics voted in 2004. I think those numbers are certainly possible even if they are a heavily working class demographic. Plus it's kind of messed up to have guest workers working here, paying taxes here, but never having a chance to sound their opinion about policy. I'm fine with not letting them vote right when they come into the country obviously, but creating a permanent underclass doesn't appeal to me either.

Actually the problem is that Republicans aren't going after them, for their votes. There is still a strong case to be made to Latino voters, even from a candidate like Romney who opposes a direct path to legalization but supports legal immigration and so forth. His problem has been artilculating the nuances to both border hawks who want secruity and Latinos who are looking for signs of compassion. Even with what happened in the Florida primary, Romney still had a good chance to get to make serious inroads. The problem in the Primary was that it went on about a month too long, maybe two. The convention was an enormous step in the right direction on this front, but more needed to be done and much sooner. I think Romney has gained some ground amongst Hispanics since the spring, though it is difficult to know for sure because polling Hispanics in many areas is very difficult. I think he will max out in the low to mid 30's. He could have done about 10% better than that had a more concerted effort occured starting in April or May.