Immigration redux

[Just_A_Guy]

The Church has endorsed the Utah Compact Declaration on Immigration Reform.

[Wingnut]

I read that in the Newsroom earlier today, then went and read the text of the Compact.

I have a question about part of the text in this section:

LAW ENFORCEMENT — We respect the rule of law and support law enforcement's professional judgment and discretion. Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.

(bold mine)

Regarding the bolded section, would that apply to the Correa family that we discussed on this board last week?

[HoosierGuy]

This really says it all:

A broad swath of business, political and religious leaders signed a compact today urging state legislators to take a moderate approach to immigration legislation.

Notice "business" right in there with political and religious. And then:

"In meetings with other groups it became evident that there was a groundswell of business and community leaders who were concerned with the tone of the discussion and the direction it was taking,"

BUSINESS again! The message is clear. They don't want their cheap labor kicked out or shut off. Notice to "moderate" approach. That means not fully making them Americans or fully kicking them out of the country. It's leaving them like they are now - on the edge, letting them work for low wages and no benefits, but also having that threat of deportation always at their throats. Perfect low wage slavery.

[Just_A_Guy]

Whether it's a criminal (versus civil) offense per se to be an illegal immigrant in the US--I don't see it in the federal code (though I've only looked at selected sections). But it's definitely a criminal offense to enter without documentation, to employ an illegal alien [if it becomes a pattern], or to transport an illegal alien within the US or to encourage/assist them to continue to reside here.

[NeuroTypical]

Reading this article clarified the issue immensely for me. We have the problem of illegal immigration because of decisions that were made back in the 1800's at the conclusion of the Mexican-American war. Both of our countries are aligned to those decisions in ways that aren't really all that easy to change.

It's good reading.

LM

[pam]

This really says it all:

A broad swath of business, political and religious leaders signed a compact today urging state legislators to take a moderate approach to immigration legislation.

Notice "business" right in there with political and religious. And then:

"In meetings with other groups it became evident that there was a groundswell of business and community leaders who were concerned with the tone of the discussion and the direction it was taking,"

BUSINESS again! The message is clear. They don't want their cheap labor kicked out or shut off. Notice to "moderate" approach. That means not fully making them Americans or fully kicking them out of the country. It's leaving them like they are now - on the edge, letting them work for low wages and no benefits, but also having that threat of deportation always at their throats. Perfect low wage slavery.

So would you prefer it just said religious leaders? Why would it be surprising that they would mention business leaders as well? All groups would be and are impacted by this in some way.

[Dravin]

So would you prefer it just said religious leaders? Why would it be surprising that they would mention business leaders as well? All groups would be and are impacted by this in some way.

The issue is HoosierGuy's assumption of the motive. Of course since they are big bad business people who's only purpose and good for society is to be taxed (otherwise they are irredeemably evil)... if those business leaders proposed a hard line stance they are racist; and if they take anything less than that it's all about wage slavery.

[FunkyTown]

The issue is HoosierGuy's assumption of the motive. Of course since they are big bad business people who's only purpose and good for society is to be taxed (otherwise they are irredeemably evil)... if those business leaders proposed a hard line stance they are racist; and if they take anything less than that it's all about wage slavery.

Dravin? I don't know about Hoosierguy's inner thoughts on this, but I do know that many businesses do employ illegal immigrants for pennies on the dollar.

The simple fact is that these people are coming here because they can get work, even if it's pennies on the dollar. The businesses are hiring them because they can get people to work for pennies on the dollar.

I get the tone of your post and I think I understand what you're saying.

You're suggesting that Hoosierguy's hatred of big business is poisoning his common sense in this regard, correct?

Could you clarify where you think he's wrong? Do you think a lot of businesses are not hiring illegal immigrants for pennies on the dollar?

I disagree with Hoosier on a lot of things. I think he's extreme, but I'm not certain he's wrong in this case. If a lot of businesses depend on illegal labour then it's not surprising if a lot of businesses are pushing to not enforce immigration laws. Would you agree?

[Dravin]

Could you clarify where you think he's wrong?

Sure, just as I can't read HoosierGuy's inner thoughts he can't read the business folks' who signed the compact. Technically the Church has business interests, shall we assume their position is based on wanting to hire illegal immigrants for janitorial staff for the Church Office Building? They have an established history of using illegal immigrants for ecclesiastical work. Or some of their financial endeavors? Additionally while plenty of business do take advantage of illegal immigrant labor not all sectors are represented equally. For instance I doubt Omniture/Adobe has the same representativeness in their workforce as say a large produce grower. Also it overlooks that with a small business (and sometimes with surprisingly large ones) the owner influences political/charitable causes, plenty of people use their money, or their business, to promote politics they desire for personal reasons. Or shall we assume that businesses that supports Planned Parenthood have the sole reasoning of wanting to cut down on maternity leave?

If a lot of businesses depend on illegal labour then it's not surprising if a lot of businesses are pushing to not enforce immigration laws. Would you agree?

Sure we can safely conclude that some businesses, enough of them nationally, are taking advantage of illegal immigrant behavior as if they couldn't find a job they wouldn't be here (of course this ignores that one can fake requisite ID to get a job). No it would not be surprising in the least to fine businesses taking a soft approach on immigration for fiscal reasons. However it is a stretch to conclude: You own a business? You support less than a hard stance on illegal immigration and were possibility influenced by a heart throb story? Impossible, you just want to keep the brown man down. Which was the tone that came across in HoosierGuy's post. If HoosierGuy wants to clarify that it is possible for a business or business person to take a soft stance on immigration for humanitarian or moral reasons I'll gladly apologize for misunderstanding his intent.

I do need to apologize though, HoosierGuy doesn't believe politicians taking a stance against immigration are racists, just liers. Calling a politician a lier is something even I have trouble objecting to due to my own biases about the profession.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Dravin