White House holding border security hostage?

[Just_A_Guy]

I sure hope this isn't true, but Senator Jon Kyl says that President Obama told him that there will be no significant new Federal effort to secure the border unless Kyl and the congressional Republicans agree to Obama's immigration reform package. Foxnews story here; see also

beginning at 3:22.

The White House, of course, denies it.

[Jbs2763]

hope y'all that wanted him are happy....

you wanted change

we got it

before too long our kids will be goose stepping in kindergarten

[Traveler]

I sure hope this isn't true, but Senator Jon Kyl says that President Obama told him that there will be no significant new Federal effort to secure the border unless Kyl and the congressional Republicans agree to Obama's immigration reform package. Foxnews story here; see also

beginning at 3:22.

The White House, of course, denies it.

Please. Border problems are not new and the federal government ignoring the problem did not start with the Obama administration – the term “wet back” predates WWII. But you are right about one thing the entire concept of reform is misleading and a lie. People are forced into servitude – but we do not call it slavery anymore we call it undocumented workers – which is an upgrade from migrant worker.

The Traveler

Edited June 25, 2010 by Traveler

[Hemidakota]

I sure hope this isn't true, but Senator Jon Kyl says that President Obama told him that there will be no significant new Federal effort to secure the border unless Kyl and the congressional Republicans agree to Obama's immigration reform package. Foxnews story here; see also

beginning at 3:22.

The White House, of course, denies it.

Why should they? You allow it to become a disaster in order to become a savior of a disaster. Beside, how many more votes can the party use to keep them in office?

Even Carter, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr., and now Obama, all fall into the same trap with wanting an open border. Maybe it is time for a American Union of Nations to become one sovereign nation.

[Hemidakota]

Please. Border problems are not new and the federal government ignoring the problem did not start with the Obama administration – the term “wet back” predates WWII. But you are right about one thing the entire concept of reform is misleading and a lie. People are forced into servitude – but we do not call it slavery anymore we call it undocumented workers – which is an upgrade from migrant worker.

The Traveler

What, no more human trafficking?

[FunkyTown]

For a slightly less histrionic approach to this, Obama is facing a tough call.

Locking down the borders entirely will hurt numerous companies that rely upon illegal immigration. Companies hiring illegal immigrants is capitalism at its best. People are willing to work for a pittance, so they don't have to pay a much higher wage to legal immigrants. Eliminating that would cut in to the profits of several companies and make them non-profitable. This would mean that the unemployment rate and business failure rate would increase even more than it has.

Obama doesn't want this.

If he can relax the standards to allow legal immigration, Obama can then set to work on illegal immigration. Like it or not: American companies are hiring these people. Ironically, the people most often screaming for government to take a hands-off approach to business become rabid dogs when the free market has decided that it wants this.

Without knowing Obama's immigration reform package, I can see that a border lockdown would be a nightmare. This is why no Republican or Democrat president prior to him has done it, either.

The simple solution: Allow freer immigration between first world allies of the US - Say: Canada, Britain, the US and Australia. This would allow workers access to travelling for work: Someone could earn $50, 000 for 6 months work in the oil fields in Alberta if work in California is hard to find, then spend six months going back to school at Oxford. As the interstate highway system has shown, freer travel improves economic conditions for everyone involved. As an addendum to that, they could create a specialized 'Unskilled Labourer Visa' that allows workers to work in positions graded as 'Unskilled' for up to six months. This would be extended to countries that are not considered security risks.

Problems with that: Security. It would be very difficult to create a secure border against terrorism with something like that. It also would result in some positions being paid less as it was easier to find people to work them.

Sadly, this will never happen: Xenophobia, fear of change and sedentarism(To coin a phrase) would create too much suspicion on something like that. This has worked well for the EU, with the exception of when a participant country has too much of a disparity economically. Skilled workers in that case will come in willing to work for next to nothing. That's why you'd want to isolate specific countries for that to work.

[Hemidakota]

The only way to solve illegal working, is to fine the companies profoundly. Having illegal parents or relatives of such, the children now involve in our society will be the first to jump up and cry 'fowl'. :) This means, it will have to be a national sweep by a government agency.

[Traveler]

I do not think most people understand the gravity of the situation. A survey in Mexico conducted by the Mexican government reveals that 80% of their population is current executing or preparing a plan to leave Mexico and come to the USA. This is not just the poor class – it is everybody.

Some things to think about. A teenage baby sitter in the USA makes more per hour than a medical Doctor makes in Mexico, a taxi cab driver that speaks English in Mexico makes more than an Engineer makes in Mexico. Their society is upside down and even getting an education is irrelevant which makes the future bleak. We could put up a mine field 10 miles wide along the whole border and individuals would risk their lives to cross it. We could fine companies that hire illegal’s, we could hate Mexicans and through them in jail just for coming here and they would still risk everything to get here.

And there is another element – Surprise – Mexico is corrupt and the corruption is coming here as well as everybody else. We cannot solve this problem on this side of the border. No one in America’s political climate is willing to even suggest what needs to be done to solve this problem. The only thing anyone is willing to do is point out what their political opposition is doing that is failing badly.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Locking down the borders entirely will hurt numerous companies that rely upon illegal immigration. Companies hiring illegal immigrants is capitalism at its best. People are willing to work for a pittance, so they don't have to pay a much higher wage to legal immigrants. Eliminating that would cut in to the profits of several companies and make them non-profitable. This would mean that the unemployment rate and business failure rate would increase even more than it has.

I like your plan generally, FunkyTown, though I note what you say about the EU's system not working where there's a great economic disparity. It strikes me that that's the case with regard to the US vis a vis most of Latin America. IMHO functional capitalism depends on balance between labor and ownership, and that balance is upset if capital can undercut labor by hiring people who are willing to subsist on starvation rations.

We were told that ending slavery would cause economic catastrophe; but we went ahead and did it because it was the right thing to do. Hopefully we can fix immigration and quit exploiting unskilled laborers without the upheaval that accompanied Reconstruction; but that said--if immigration reform means I have to start paying five bucks for a head of lettuce, then so be it. I'll take comfort in knowing that if my job evaporates, I can always go back and earn a living wage in the fields.

[Hemidakota]

I believe, there will come a time that among the world's global nations, only two nations will survive prior to the Lord’s second coming; 1) USA -the promise by the Lord; those who are willing to fight against tyranny of an oppressed corrupted government/people. Leaving those across the veil tasked before His coming in cleansing not only in the church but of the land itself. 2) Israel, this will be the Lord handy work in saving what is left of that nation when He returns. The rest of the global nations will crumble. This will include Mexico and Canada.

[Hemidakota]

Tom Smart, Deseret News

Investigators look over scene where a man was gunned down early in the morning near 500 No. and 1760 West Thursday in Salt Lake City.

Talk about illegals, we can talk about the crimes committed. Good example: Police arrest 3 in drive-by slaying | Deseret News

Even if, the term is not mentioned in the story, but tracking down the assailants and verify there entry visas or work visas is legal or not, there is greater probability that they are not. Sad story of family being gunned down in the streets.

[Guest]

I'm about the only one in my entire family who saw potential in McCain-Kennedy bill.

It was great! The only problem I saw with that bill is the eligibility of an illegal immigrant who applied for documentation by paying the fine to have a path to citizenship. I don't agree with that.

So, here is the bill in a nutshell:

1.) Tighten security in all borders (increase border patrols, build additional fencing, etc.)

2.) All illegal immigrants currently in the US can apply for the new Z-visa by paying a fine of x thousand dollars.

3.) A new Y-visa will be issued to "guest workers" (supposedly unskilled workers) with an expiration date of 2 years.

4.) Z-visa holders will be illegible for citizenship if they are of good character (no crime), completes a high-school education, and has been in the US constinuously for 5 years.

Besides #4, I like the bill.

This is my version of it:

* Y and Z visas should not be eligible for welfare or any federal entitlement/aid programs (including federal grants). States may have their own welfare systems support Y and Z visa holders if they want - it's up to them.

* Z visas will only be issued up until 2 years after the bill is passed. Tightening of the borders will have to be completed by then.

* Federal immigration police need to step up in the arrests of illegal immigrants. Fines for hiring illegal immigrants will be steep, rewards for reporting illegal immigrants increased, all illegal immigrants in the penal system need to be deported immediately.

Why am I in support of the Z-visa (also called amnesty regardless of how strongly McCain insists it is not amnesty - let's call an apple an apple, shall we?):

- I have several friends currently in the US illegally. There's quite a bit of illegal Filipinos hiding in California!

- If I can't even find these people, how much more for the police?

- These guys are like moles - they burrow and burrow. The harder you look for them, the deeper they burrow.

- Therefore, getting them out of the system would be a costly and time-consuming endeavor. They are living in the US, gaining access to US systems including welfare because they are undocumented and can hide good. They steal documents or make fake ones and get voter's registration cards even!

- The least costly way to get them all documented is to give them an incentive to go out in the open and get documented! Fine them X number of dollars to get a Z-visa which will give them more freedom to find better jobs. They will now be in the system and can be better controlled. All undocumented workers dream of becoming "legal". They will do the best they can to get that document. The money you get from the fines, you can use to hire more border patrols and build fences!

- Illegal activity cannot be rewarded with citizenship. That's full pardon. I don't agree with that.

[Hemidakota]

The McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill Falls Short | The Heritage Foundation

The Bill (PDF Format): http://www.shusterman.com/pdf/mccain605.pdf

[Hemidakota]

I am totally against "TITLE X. PROMOTING ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE". Unless we provide it for every American, poor to rich, then no.

[FunkyTown]

Thanks Jag,

I would agree that the majority of South American nations have issues like this.

I'm concerned, though, with forcing a certain wage so that only legal immigrants and locals will work. My concern lies with imports: South American farms will undercut American farms by such an extent that even with transportation, it'll be cheaper to buy foreign foods. That could risk farmers.

Immigration is, right now, a mess. Whatever's decided will hurt someone, somewhere.

I like your plan generally, FunkyTown, though I note what you say about the EU's system not working where there's a great economic disparity. It strikes me that that's the case with regard to the US vis a vis most of Latin America. IMHO functional capitalism depends on balance between labor and ownership, and that balance is upset if capital can undercut labor by hiring people who are willing to subsist on starvation rations.

We were told that ending slavery would cause economic catastrophe; but we went ahead and did it because it was the right thing to do. Hopefully we can fix immigration and quit exploiting unskilled laborers without the upheaval that accompanied Reconstruction; but that said--if immigration reform means I have to start paying five bucks for a head of lettuce, then so be it. I'll take comfort in knowing that if my job evaporates, I can always go back and earn a living wage in the fields.