It's incredible that one bunch of Republicans can try to trick Joe Sixpack voters with tough talk on immigration when it's the Republican employers (yes, virtually all of them Republicans, to a name) who attracted (without penalty) the immigrants here in the first place. Us Americans are evidently perceived by the corporate crowd to be a stupid, stupid bunch--and to the extent we don't vote Democratic, they're right.

The Republicans are suffering from a deep cognitive dissonance here. The business wing wants poor immigrants in America to increase company profits; it's also happy to have them illegal because people who aren't supposed to be here aren't entitled to hour limits, minimum wages or safe working conditions. But it does want them here. The nativists actually want the illegals--Catholic, brown-skinned and worst of all Mexican--out, and are threatening company profits. What's a patriotic, profit-loving Republican politician to do?

Of Hispanic origin myself, and quite liberal by most criteria, am amazed and frightened by professional Democrats' studied aversion to this issue.

The straw man of xenophobia is a criminal copout when wages for construction, material handling, housekeeping and similarly nonoutsourcable jobs have been ravaged by the abundance of cheap undocumented workers.

Yep, the Repugnicans want it both ways: punitive measures targeting illegals-and their ample supply for greedy employers.

The Democrats and many unions are pursuing the numbers/voters game behind the quaint shield of "civil rights".

Meanwhile, working folx get f*cked. Unemployment remains stubbornly high for low/semi skilled; and too many black citizens, once again, are passed over for the cheaper bracero.

Maybe it all starts in big Agbiz where they "need" cheap labor to remain globally competitive. But if an employer can't afford fully naturalized citizens earning living wages, they should find another line of biz or go under.

In any case, the concept of "guest workers" (and all work visas) simply codifies the abomination of slavery-lite. With unenforceable expirations, visas also enable end-running the theatrics of border fencing.

Give the Republicans SOME credit. They're talking about this.

When you can't win the argument on the merits, you attack your opponent. That's what The Nation's John Nichols does, calling the Republican candidates xenophobic, or rabid, or hateful.

We need to ask Nichols and others who oppose the regulation of immigration and migration: do you think there should be ANY regulation of the number of immigrants and migrants allowed into this country each year? If so, what is the number you would allow?

Here are a couple of facts to keep in mind:

* Currently the U.S. allows more legal immigrants and migrants (2 million/year) than the rest of the countries of the world combined: 1 million new permanent residents, 700,000 new citizens, plus about 500,000 new people with work-related visas.

* There are nearly 5 billion people in the world who live in countries poorer than Mexico. That's 17 times the current U.S. population.

Again, how many should be allowed in? All 5 billion? All who want to come? As many as U.S. employers want?

In my opinion, the racist/xenophobic charge is pure rhetoric. If anyone in the debate is racist, it's those who promote wage-slave migrant labor. If anyone lacks compassion, it's those who care nothing that wages and benefits are being lowered across the board (because of unlimited numbers of low-wage replacement workers), and that working-class Americans and their families are being devastated.

I was surprised there wasn't more (or any) talk about what causes illegal immigration in the first place (poverty in Mexico fuelled, in large part, by abominations like NAFTA). It's as if Mexicans just can't wait to get here! Right. The debate squibbled over the symptoms, not the cause, of this ailment (which affects both Mexico and the US). Poverty's the problem, not the lack of a wall or sanctuary cities or what-the-hell-ever. People don't want to leave their homes en masse without a very good reason.

NAFTA pitted the small Mexican farmer against Archer Daniels Midland. Squish. Understandably, migrants seek better wages up here - at the expense of our native workers.

The intended net effect of these SHAFTA deals is to xfer lingering wealth of workers to the plutocracy.

The Repblicans sol'n is "getting tough" on workers and more tax cuts for billionaires.

The Democrats' sol'n here is universal college for all; like we can matriculate our way through globalization. Quite the sad scam; but it supports the party's most influential lobby: edubiz.

Tijuana, nobody said Mexico was ever any kind of paradise.

Daniel David, will alienating people make them vote Democrat?

Stilba makes a good point. None of the politicians or news media seem to be talking about the root causes for why so many come to the USA for jobs. It seems to me that, given a choice, many would choose to make a living at home with their families. It can't be easy to leave your home and family on a long, lonely and frequently dangerous quest to provide for them.

Why? One reason, obviously, is corrupt government (on both sides of the border). Reducing the supply of cheap, exploitable laborers would reduce the profits of powerful corporate campaign contributors.

Jumperpin cites another – crushing the local farmers. Plantations owned by politically powerful fruit and coffee companies have been exploiting Latin American farmers for a century. Attempts at land reform have been suppressed by brutal governments, often installed or propped up by US military power. (Look at the history of the 20th century)

No doubt there are other reasons.

An investigation into the impact of US foreign and economic policies and the practices of multinational corporations on the causes of illegal immigration, particularly from Latin America, would be enlightening, and might point the way to an equitable long-term solution.

As individuals, we can support fair trade organizations and products to help people get decent prices for their products and produce, so they can support themselves at home.

Said it before, say it again. To all of you who insist that we "do something" about illegal immigrants. What, pray tell, will you suggest? What options do you place on the table? A fence? You know it won't work. Deport all illegals? How, with what law enforcement organization? Put heavy penalty on anybody in the US who puts illegals in their service? Again, how to enforce it? Quite impossible, I say. So get bloody off of blaming the repubs and the dems for not "dealing" with this issue for their own reasons. They don't "deal" because they know what I know, and what all of you will grok once you think on it awhile, and it's oh, so very simple. So long as hundreds of millions of people, starved and driven into poverty by the shinanigans of NAFTA, corporatism and the like, are sitting in Mexico and points south, i.e., close to our border, and so long as they can find a way to get money through work here however menial, however degrading, however demeaning, they will come and come and come. So the only "solution" is for the only player capable of making a difference -- the US -- to get proactive and instigate a very aggressive campaign with Mexico et al consisting of: (1) the repeal of NAFTA (clobbering working people all over North America), (2) instigate a very aggressive Marshall Plan to build up the economic infrastructure of Mexico, (3) get aggressive about limiting the world-class graft that sees oligarchs like Slim become the richest man in the world on the backs of raising phone rates to millions who can ill afford an increase in this basic service, (4) use every mechanism in our power, economic sanctions, tariffs, whatever, to compel the corrupt Mexican government to get off its butt and really start a reformation of their system that allows their people to survive in a country which is extremely well-blessed with natural resources. There is, you must all come to realize, no other way. Yet, this Other Way is at present nowhere even discussed at anyplace in our political discourse, not in mainstream politics, not by the media, and not even, sadly, by commentators here who are quite well informed on a wide range of subjects. Ask me, How compelling is the force that brings people up here against every obstacle? Do you realize that the amount of money sent by first-world countries to third-world countries, usually by people working at not much above subsistence, amounts to a sum which exceeds ALL of the foreign aid granted by ALL of the first-world countries? The sum is ca. $300 billion a year, of which something near $100 billion is sent out from the US, largest chunks of which go to Mexico (ca. $25 billion) and the Philippines (ca. $18 billion.) This is a major source of foreign currency in these countries, in fact, a vital part of even the most corrupt governments in our hemisphere. Nowhere have I heard from ANY quarter in all these debates an approach to the issue of illegal immigrants which has the slightest chance of success. Will you help to spread the word on this issue through the only rational approach as outlined here? Choose quickly!

ezeflyer,

"Daniel David, will alienating people make them vote Democrat?"

I'm going to plead dumb on this one, because I really don't understand the question. (I alienate a lot of people, it seems, and without intending to do so.)

Even President Bush wanted immigration reform, yet talk radio killed it by convincing its listeners (largely a Joe Sixpack crowd, to be listening to Limbaugh in the first place) that too many Hispanics would forever turn the country liberal in future elections. Employers love lots of easy immigrant labor and have blocked sensible workplace enforcement for decades and they're the Republicans' funders. Giuliani and Romney thought undocumented guest workers fine in their past days, too, but now want to talk of big fences to appease the present polling climate.

Some Democrats are a soft-hearted bunch wanting to be humanitarian as well as court the Hispanic vote, and some other Democrats have wanted immigrants legalized so as to more easily recruit them for unions and elections. Nearly everyone on every side has known all along that the presence of lots of extra people in shadows has the effect of driving down U.S. wages. Making these people into citizens would help to drive wages back up

My feeling that Republicans' tough talk now on immigration is a "trick" because, once elected, Republicans will not defy their corporate sponsors with real enforcement. The enforcement, if any, is only really effective in the form of workplace fines and mandated working condition improvements. So, to my way of thinking, Democrats are more likely to make that happen than Republicans (who DO NOT fight the employers.) What is the alienation?

bill peppin:

"Put heavy penalty on anybody in the US who puts illegals in their service? Again, how to enforce it? Quite impossible, I say."

I usually don't read (or respond to) people who don't understand paragraphs, but if you think we can't enforce laws against illegal employers then you must also think we can't enforce speed limits, hunting and fishing seasons, OSHA rules, etc. Ridiculous.

"So long as hundreds of millions of people, [are] starved and driven into poverty . . . they will come and come and come."

The migrants who come are not the poor and starving. Poor and starving people don't have the thousands of U.S. dollars it costs to make the trip. It's the middle-class people who come. Just like the thousands of Americans who left their jobs in the lower 48 to go to Alaska in the 1970s when the oil pipeline was being built, they do it because they want to work hard for a few years and then go home and buy a nice house or business for cash. They're industrious, sure. But they aren't starving, and they aren't the poor of their countries.

As I've said before, the answer is to fine and jail the illegal employers. You start with the biggest offenders, and move down the list. Those employers who claim they "didn't know" their thousands of non-English speaking employees are illegal should be given the same consideration as drivers who claim they "didn't know" they were speeding.

Also, public tax dollars should not be given to illegals in the form of food stamps, housing subsidies, cash, etc.

Turn off the the job magnet, turn off the free benefits, and the flood of illegals will stop. Those already here will go home voluntarily. No reason to build a fence or deport people.

In addition, one of the penalties imposed on illegal employers should be a $5000 severance bonus paid to each of their illegal employees. This will have a two-fold impact: penalizing the illegal employers, and giving the illegal migrants some expense money for the trip home.

I like the unique idea from Bob K. above about forcing employers to pay "fines" to their illegals:

"In addition, one of the penalties imposed on illegal employers should be a $5000 severance bonus paid to each of their illegal employees. This will have a two-fold impact: penalizing the illegal employers, and giving the illegal migrants some expense money for the trip home."

I've often wondered if the whole immigration problem could be solved with a special minimum wage (say $20 per hour, or so) for illegal immigrants. You either pay it to the worker now, or pay the difference to government later as a fine, with no statute of limitation. Treat guest workers as guests, in pay, but price most of them out of the market. Allow employers to hire what they need when REALLY needed. Raise wages for U.S. workers. Eliminate the poverty of illegals in America. Enforce it all with paperwork at IRS and DOL using the Social Security number mismatches. Thoughts?

Daniel David said:

"Us Americans are evidently perceived by the corporate crowd to be a stupid, stupid bunch–and to the extent we don't vote Democratic, they're right."

"What is the alienation?"

In the words of the White Stripes song "Icky Thump":
"What Americans, nothing better to do?
Why don't you kick yourself out?
Your an immigrant too.
Who's using who?
What should we do?
You can't be a pimp, and a prostitute too.

Hi, I'm a long time reader and am posting here for the first time. Sometime ago I read an article which discussed some of the root causes of Mexican immigration. It's titled "Migrant workers: Casualties of Neoliberalism" and was writen by Justin Akers Chacon. Here's a link to it: http://www.isreview.org/issues/54/casualties.shtml I think those interested in the issue will find it very informative.

I looked at the article (propaganda) suggested above. It's full of BS opinions and falsehoods. Such as:

There are "severe labor shortages" in the U.S. Bull!

"Immigrants not only furnish employers with cheap labor, but undocumented workers make a disproportionate contribution to the tax system without receiving benefits in return." The truth is the opposite: Only a small percentage of illegal migrants pay income taxes, and a very high percentage of them receive public benefits. This is like adding insult to injury. Not only are U.S. citizens losing their jobs to illegals, their tax dollars are also going to the illegals in the form of food stamps, housing subsidies, etc.

"The [1986] amnesty led to an increase in wages for all workers." ALL workers?!!
To support this ridiculous statement, the writer cites the U.S. DOL: "Within five years, real wages of formerly undocumented workers rose an average of 15 percent." So, that's for "all" formerly illegal migrant workers, not for all U.S. citizens. For U.S. citizens, real wages and benefits are falling. And that is because the labor market is flooded with low-wage replacement workers.

The article calls for: "the right to free movement for all workers, without border walls." It represents the interests of the corporations, and says not a word about the interests of U.S. working and middle-class people.