I agree with your main point--a secure border is a necessary precondition for amnesty.

But I'm not sure you're taking enough to care to state that point in a way that would actually get it implemented.  If it's just a matter of domestic workers vs. employers and immigrants, domestic workers will lose.  They are divided and poorly organized.  Therefore, any attempt at reform is going to have to unite both native and immigrant workers.  So any Democrat arguing for tighter borders would be wise to argue even more loudly for amnesty or something like it.  Perhaps it would also be wise to focuse enforcement efforts not so much against the immigrants coming over the border but against the employers who entice them to come over here.  As long as people are here wanting to hire illegal immigrants, and as long as there are impoverished people outside our borders, those people will find SOME way into our country.  Employers are inherently easier to regulate than undocumented persons.

You are right to complain that Reid will transform a de facto two-tier labor market into a legally sanctioned one, but it would be wise to focus on how two-tier labor markets are bad for both immigrants and domestic workers. (Though, in a global free trade world, any field involving manufacturing or services that can be performed over telecommunications will be inescapably two-tier anyway.)

True that there is a sufficient number of Border Patrol that would do the job of police in bad neighborhood. That is, with enough cops there is no need or incentive to enforce law through aggressive policing after the crime--it just doesn't happen in the first place. For crime prevention we don't need police-state practices like "your papers, please", just the expectation that a crime will be noticed in progress.

However, the immigration equation is different in a fundamental way. I find nothing wrong with the "sufficient-number" approach but the number may be huge. This is on reason why we have to also look at the incentives to immigration.

A second difference, not just in quantity, is that a mugging is a crime at root, at first, and that is all. Illegal immigration is a crime of legitimacy, not directly a crime. That is, going somewhere that offers a job is morally appropriate--it is the lack of paperwork that is the crime. Legitimate immigration is not like licensing, bonding, or other documentation that directly adds to the value of a worker. The legal immigrant has the same working credentials as the illegal one--none. He is just a worker.

Illegal immigration is morally gray; the damage caused by it is uncertain and diffuse. Let's look at who is hurt by it, and why.

Is it the American worker? If the job is so low-paying that not enough people show up to harvest a crop that argument seems empty. Is it the employer? Not necessary to consider. Society at large? Maybe. Workers that cost money for law enforcement or social services, as well as infrastructure needs like sewage and trash, or roads, and do not also contriibute to tax revenue, are a financial drain, not necessarily offset by the taxes from the employer's higher profits.

Note that the crucial point is tax revenue, so if illegal immigrants were paying taxes like others there is no damage and there should be no crime.

If social damage is from overpopulation it is equally wrong to have children as to have someone walk over the border.

If social damage is some subtle diluting of a preferred cultural tone that is a pretty weak argument.

So we have a crime of credentials with no direct victim. There are some secondary effects that matter, though. Uncredentialed people are troubling for issues like law enforcement in general and terrorism in particular. What is the reason to restrict credentials? A mechanical argument for controlled immigration adds up the above, crowding, law enforcement, and government services needs, to say that a regulated immigration is manageable and unregulated is not.

Since this is not exactly a barbarians-at-the-gates worry, just a beaureaucratic preference, it doen't get people hot. What does? Why is there such an argument? Arguments about job competition sound feeble and are suspected of being pure selfishness. Not that selfishness is inherently immoral--one takes care of family before neighbor, after all. Honesty requires acknowledging this. So what can be done other than some, possibly huge, number of border patrol or a Great Wall?

My proposal is: If there are no jobs no one will come. It is the existence of jobs that can't be filled otherwise that invites illegal immigration. Well-paying jobs already have lots of competition and people will not immigrate unless they have a reasonable chance of work, so if we "simply" make all jobs well-paying the problem evaporates, since those jobs will be filled.

It is of course not simple to make all jobs well-paying, but it is the root problem. The best way to stop activities that are difficult to prevent is to remove the incentive. It is easier to sell legal acohol than bootleg, and there is no problem of rampant bootleg acohol. Make it easier to immigrate legally and remove the incentive to hire illegals by making sure the jobs pay a wage that more Americans will accept.

Draconian laws against hiring or helping illegals are after-the-fact and invite moral calamities such as charity workers becoming criminals. We need a combination of the "make it easy to be legal" (alcohol) approach with "make sure crime doesn't get started" (community policing) approach.

Border control is a necessary precondition for any successful immigration reform, including the only one that is compatible with the prevention of a two-tier labor market--namely, a complete amnesty and full citizenship for most illegal immigrants already here.  Here's what the agenda should be:  Control the borders first, discuss the terms of an amnesty later--oh, and, by the way, ban guest workers and all other kinds of indentured servants, apart from a tiny number of well-paid professionals with green cards.

 

I think that Lind had the basic political and substantive trade-off correct - increased border control combined with increased legal immigration (through an amnesty program that also takes into account the needs of those resident aliens and green card holders that have played by the rules).  Going down the path of a guest worker program, even if it done with the good intentions of softening the blows of unduly punitive immigration reform is extraordinarily short sighted and fundamentally un-American.

I'm concerned however that de-linking enforcement and amnesty/increased legal immigration will result in the passage of stricter enforcement, after whcih nativists and populists will conclude that immigration "reform" has been accomplished.  Lind's central concern, the existence of a two-tier labor market, cannot be addressed without both sides of the equation.  Enforcement now, amnesty later may make good electoral politics, but it doesn't make for sensible policy.   

Further, draconian enforcement shouldn't be confused with effective enforcement.  The effective crackdown on crime in urban areas in the 1990s was due to agressive, proactive policing.  There is little evidence that the harsh federal narcotics sentences had anything to do with the sucess - but they have resulted in a patently unjust system for thousands of low-level pawns languishing in federal prisons.  Democrats should justifiable treat provisions to beef up border patrols differently from provisions that seek to jail priests from servicing illegal immigrant parishioners.   Moreover, Democrats can and should demand that enforcement measures effectively target the employers of illegal immigrants before signing onto any legislation. 

I think Lind is basically right here, it's become political suicide to treat immigration as a moral issue alone, which is what too many Democrats still do.

But all attempts to solve this issue on its own fall short because they don't address the elephant in the room.  Until we stop allowing the elites of this country to escape all accountablility for the mess their free-trade policies have made of this country, there are no solutions to the immigration dilemma.  The free-trade-absolutist elites (who no doubt will come out in force here) refuse to acknowledge that we are rapidly becoming a plutocracy where fewer and fewer people are allowed a meaningful and well-paid role, and the rest are simply pushed away from the table.  The elites owe the rest of us an honest explanation of what the America of their dreams looks like.

In my field, the immigration problem is not with illegal immigrants but the constantly escalating demands of industries to allow more legal immigrants into the country under visa programs like H1B.  This is pursued as a cost-control measure. 

America simply doesn't have the same level of goods to offer immigrants that it once did.  It can't ask people to die for the country when the only job open to many of its citizens is soldier.  And we are moving inexorably in that direction.  Every year some previously-thought inviolable benefit becomes ideologically contested by the Wall Street consensus.  In 1992 we were arguing about how to provide health insurance for all.  Now health insurance recipients are accused of wanting "subsidies".  Did you ever hear THAT one before this year?

If, as is increasingly apparent, the American standard of living is in general being drastically reduced, we need to start talking about shared sacrifice instead of continually allowing larger and larger slices of the total wealth to be captured by smaller and smaller slices of the population and the multinational corporations. 

Welcome back.  You have a knack of sparking interesting discussions.

What happened to Senator Kyl's (R-Az) plan on immigration.

His plan would require all illegals to turn themselves in, then leave the country, and re-apply to the federal government to return to the job/area they were in before they turned themsleves in. If accepted, they could only return for 2 years, then they would have to leave again. Wow!

Illegal immigration sounds like another hot button issue, like abortion or gay marriage, that will always be used as a distraction, and never solved as it would upset the status quo if it was changed.  

I'm not much for the nativist wing of the party (Irealize this "wing" isn't very big) but if we can all agree that illegal immigration is bad & shouldn't be incentivized, and we can agree that immigration in general is a "political" problem, and that it's good to fix political problems, then why can't we agree to something like a wall?    

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there is only a finite number of jobs that are available. Under the present scheme, 11 million people who are unlawfully here form the bulk of an existing 2-tier employment system and are subject to being exploited. If the argument is against creating a 2-tier employment system, strict physical control of the border without more would be tantamount to closing the barn door after the horses have fled.

Allowing those already here (excluding those who have committed crimes) to come out of the darkness with an offer of earned legalization consisting of a penalty for their past transgressions, payment of taxes (past and current), civics assimilation, and continued, but now authorized employment, should have the effect of forcing those who currently employ them to meet ordinary labor law standards as they apply to wages and safety.

I suspect that the guest worker program is in reality a red herring. If comprehensive immigration reform includes an earned legalization component, the legalized 11 million will fill the existing need for unskilled labor and the demand will dry up. The need for guest workers will be minimal, and with an enlarged labor force, the job magnet will disappear.

In addition, earned legalization would have the effect of adding a large number of relatively long-term workers to the labor pool at just the same time that the baby boomers retire.

Finally, there will be substantial homeland security benefits from having most of those now underground out in the open and registered. 

What Reid and Kennedy are not telling people there is no enforcement mechanism for the guest worker program once their time is up. So in practical terms it amounts to a amnesty plan for 12 million illegals. Not to mention giving a green light for millions more to storm across our border.

In addition these folks do take away jobs from Americans and place a tremendous strain on social services in southwestern states.  Here in CA we are overwhelmed by these folks and their needs. They've depressed wages for manufacturing and service jobs across the board as well. We have medium sized businesses that do nothing but employ illegals by the hundreds because they can treat these people like dirt, cheat them out of their wages and expose them to toxic chemicals without worrying about lawsuits or them calling the authorities. The janitorial industry is notorious for all of these practices.

Now if the Democrats and especially progressives were sincere in dealing with this issue they would support criminal sanctions and massive penalties against anyone who employs illegals. Furthermore given their supposed support of national security they ought to be the first to support a secure border rather than attack fellow Americans who want it as racist and xenophobic.

Because right now the Democrats look like a pack of open borders types who don't care about the average American worker at all.  BTW if Reid does do the filibuster on this issue they can forget about bringing back in independents and disenchanted moderate GOPers  to support them. They'll stay home rather than support a party that doesn't care about the ordinary American.

Are you related to William S. Lind?

To Voteless in DC: Your comparison of the late 19th century...early  20th century immigrants from Europe (primarily) with the influx over the past 30 years from Mexico and, to a lesser extent, Canada and Cuba,  is no t a good comparison...

The European immigrants, those 'huddled masses yearning to breathe free', came to this country almost entirely as LEGAL immigrants, and they were not workers who came with the intent of returning to their native country...They were intent on using English as a primary language mostly because itr was profitable for them to do so from the standpoint of improving their living standards...and making their attainment of citizenship easier.

They melted into the demographic pot and became Americans, even though many of their customs (folkwise) were preserved.

Unfortunately, the current wave, expecially from the south, have no primary object of attaining citizenship...they are here only to allow themselves to be exploited by low-wage-paying employers, and then, after utilizing the services paid for by American tax-payers, returning to their native lands..

I do not assign any devious or criminal intent to them (the current immigrants)...almost any people under the same circumstances in which they are born would do the same.

But to remind us that we are a 'nation of immigrants' with the implication that there is some correlation with earlier immigration to this country from Europe to our present UN-CONTROLLED borders is a false premise. 

Our present non-working system of dealing with the 'invasion' of primarily Latin immigrants (AND I AM NOT ANTI-LATINO, PER SE) is tantamount to surrendering the language, traditions, customs and genesis of our country without a fight...and we are doing so mainly because Employers want CHEAP LABOR.

I have been waiting to post on this topic until all the usual suspects have been rounded up and accounted for.  Now that there seems to be a fairly representative collection I will add my two cents worth.

I have spent most of my life on the border except for some work time in places like Michigan and Washington, D.C.  As a bilingual "Anglo" with many friends and relations whose roots are in Mexico or even that portion of the United States that was formerly Mexican or in the beginning Spanish, I have an opinion that differs broadly from most of those heretofore presented.

First, it is too late to be arguing about sealing the border or even trying to change radically the de facto status of either the twelve million or so Hispanic illegals already in the U.S.A. or the next twelve million who are on their way.  The only thing to do at this point is to accept the benign invasion, as it were, as a unique circumstance calling for a unique response.

I work every day with a crew of Spanish-speaking men and women some of whom are citizens of the U.S.A. and some not.  Some of them regard themselves as permanent residents and some as Mexican residents just here for a day, a week, or a few yeers until they have enough saved up to go home.  They have in fact roots on both sides of the border, which for them is no more than an inconvenience -- wall or no wall -- that can be dealt with as just another affront to common sense, rather like having to drive an extra mile or so on their way home to find a good tortilla shop that does not sell the cardboard variety found in most supermarkets.

Like them, I cross the border as best I can, putting up with my own inconveniences in doing so -- though I must say that to their credit the authorities in Sonora are no longer requiring car permits for Americans as a way of boosting tourism.  In Mexico itself, even way down in Sinaloa or Nayarit, one sees American license plates from nearly every state and, no, they are not all stolen cars, but rather the cars of people working in the U.S.A. just home to visit the family or waiting to go back.  Every family I know of in Mexico has someone living north of the border or someone just returned from there.  Rich and poor alike, they talk about places in New York, in California, in Iowa just like anyone back from holiday.  And they laugh endlessly about this or that crazy American law, policy, or just plain stupid attitude they encounter in the simple task of moving back and forth seeking no more than to make a living and get on with their lives.

What I am saying here is that our political posturing -- whether motivated by economic concerns, respect for the law, or racist and cultural distinctions (on both liberal or reactionary sides of that one) -- is and will continue to be of no consequence unless we find a way to embrace the reality of this wider world while at the same time continuing to locate and disarm the bad guys. some of whom are narco-terrorists or exploiters of immigrant laborers and some of whom are our own Congressmen or residents of the White House.  

I have no immediate answers to the problem. only these few observations to offer.  And I look forward to another visit to the local Waffle House later this morning, where I will sit with my Mexican and American friends and laugh gently at the spectacle of a new wave of Minutemen just in from Oklahoma, sitting at the next booth with their red, white, and blue paraphernalia and talking loudly about what an important role they're playing in defending their country against the foreign invader.

RG

This attitude helped to inspire the switch of most Americans to the Republican Party.

At worst, perhaps 10% switched, going from 55%/45% to 45%/55%.  And the Civil Rights Act had a lot to do with it too.

To mhpine: not to nit-pick, but your statement to the effect that many Italians made their 'fortune' and returned to the old country is a bit mis-leading as a comparison to the 'back and forth' movement of present-day 'illegals' from Mexico, and I imagine, on reflection, that you will agree.

The mere geographical facts involved insure that the number of 'illegals' from Mexico (and other contiguous countries) is MANY times what would have been similar movements from immigrants from Europe.

But, again, the solution lies in (1) finding a way to LEGALIZE and accommodate the granting of citizenship to the 'illegals' already here, and (2) clampiing down strictly on EMPLOYERS who then continue to hire newly-arrived illegals. (3) Using whatever police powers are required to restrict access across our borders to those who are allowed to enter legally.

Anyhow, at the rate Bush & Company are going, we may very well soon have our own class of poorest of the poor who will be fording the Rio Grande to find a beter way of life in our neighbor, Mexico, or fleeing to Canada to escape the destitution of the U.S.A.

I'm still stuck on why there are jobs Americans aren't taking. Normally if a business has difficulty attracting workers it offers a better deal. With legal low-wage day labor, that process is short-circuited. To stop it, we could of course increase penalties for hiring illegals, or we could force higher wages (and decent conditions), or a combination. I favor emphasis on wages and conditions. If there were a national, effective day laborers' union, they would negotiate for those things. As long as it is legal to avoid a union worker, though, some businesses will employ the low-wage workers and squeeze out the better employers.

If a farmer offers a decent wage he'll go out of business since other growers will undersell him. This is where a minimum wage doesn't hurt business since all have to abide by it. Food prices go up a small amount, but not by the proportional amount, since wages are only a portion of food costs. I see nothing wrong with wage protection combined with tariffs on imported foods. We already subsidize our agriculture.

If picking lettuce paid an attractive wage Americans would fill those jobs. Allowing low wages invites the problem.

I see two main reasons for people to oppose the legalization of illegal immigrants.

1. They blame illegal immigrants for breaking laws and fail to see the US government's responsibility for creating this whole illegal immigration phenomena.

I think that the US government is to blame for these reasons:
A. There are many jobs in the service sector that can only be filled by people who are already in the US. For example, a restaurant owner can not afford to fly a cook from another country to the US and fly him back if he does not turn out to be a good fit.
C. The US government does not offer visas for people to come to the US to look for jobs. Right now foreigners can come to the US to work only if they already have got a job offer before they come. But for jobs that I just mentioned, foreigners can not get job offers before they come. As a result, there are jobs in the US that can not be filled. And there are foreigners who want to come to look for jobs but can not get the visas to come.

2. They blame illegal immigrants for bringing down the wages. But illegal immigrants want to get paid as much as Americans. The reason why they can not get as much compensation is that they do not have the legal mean to do so. Americans should help them out. Blaming them will not solve any problem.

Michael,

I think that Talleyrand said "They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing". He was talking of the exiled royalists. What Voltaire said of the Habsburg empire is : "it's neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire".

P.