Rocky Anderson's Immigration Solution:

A System Matched to Societal and Economic Values

The Challenge:

The U.S. immigration system is outdated, overly complicated, and unjust. Paralysis in the system and in the political leadership that should carry out needed reform impedes the progress and development of our economy, our society, and our people.

This complex situation has been brought about by decades of government and corporate collusion that essentially condones the hypocrisy of “Help Wanted” signs being placed on the south side of the Mexican-U.S. border and injustice and a lack of empathy for millions of undocumented immigrants living on the north side of that same border.

Harsh immigration laws are selectively enforced against undocumented workers while the businesses that hire them operate under remarkably lax standards. This holds especially true for workers whose occupations require only unskilled or semi-skilled labor.

A 2005 Congressional Budget Office report, “The Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market,” indicated that one in seven workers were foreign born and that one in nineteen were undocumented. The rate is even higher in low-education jobs at construction sites and at restaurants. Recent reports estimate that between 50 and 70 percent of farm workers in the U.S. are undocumented. This amounts to 1.6 million employees.

Demographic data suggest the challenge will become greater. A 2011 Pew Hispanic Center report based on the 2010 U.S. census indicated that the median age of undocumented adults is 36 years old, compared with 46 for U.S. citizen adults. Sixty-three percent of the undocumented have lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years.

Rigid immigration laws do not provide any option for the vast majority of undocumented immigrants to legalize their status. For those who do qualify, long waiting lists are often the norm. The waiting lists for many Mexican nationals exceed 15 years. And again, most will not qualify.

U.S. companies in agriculture have constantly complained about the lack of available workers. Some economists have speculated that a policy of mass deportations or crackdowns against undocumented workers would devastate the entire agriculture industry and perhaps force it to relocate to other countries. Despite this, attempts to reform immigration laws to fit the needs of agriculture failed repeatedly during the last decade.

The immigration system has been changed various times to meet the needs of large corporations, particularly in high-tech industries. However, there is growing consensus that an outdated and rigid immigration system is harming the global competitiveness of the U.S.

The Record of the Democratic and Republican Parties:

In 1996 during his campaign for reelection, President Bill Clinton signed an immigration law that imposed strict rules on undocumented immigrants: those who had been in the U.S. for between six months and a year would be prohibited from coming back to the U.S. for three years. Those who had been in the U.S. for more than a year without documents would be prohibited from coming back to the U.S. for ten years. An unintended consequence was that circular migration, the pattern of people going back and forth, slowed drastically. In a sense, undocumented immigrants got trapped in the U.S.

President George W. Bush had signaled interest in immigration reform, and in early September 2001, he met with Mexican President Vicente Fox. Both talked about an improved relationship between Mexico and the U.S. Immigration was part of the discussion. The U.S. response to September 11 included an end to action on reform.

In August 2001, Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, proposed the DREAM Act, which would have provided a path to residence and citizenship for high-performing undocumented students. This also became a casualty of September 11. In addition, over several years, Senator Hatch abandoned his proposal and, obviously trying to please immigration opponents, became a fierce foe of even the most limited immigration reform.

In 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives, with Republican and some Democratic support (mostly by so-called Blue Dogs), passed enforcement-only style immigration reform that would have criminalized undocumented status. The U.S. Senate passed a bill that would have provided more comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to legal residence for some undocumented immigrants, largely on the basis of their length of stay. The two styles of reform were incompatible, and they eventually failed as the two branches of Congress remained rigid in their particular approaches.

In 2007, Congress considered immigration reform. Republicans generally pushed for reforms that would address labor shortages in agriculture and other industries. Democrats pushed back because of a desire to protect organized labor. In contrast to the high expectations in 2005, few expected immigration reform to succeed in 2007. Predictably, reform failed.

In 2008, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama promised in two major speeches to push immigration reform in his first year if elected. He broke that promise.

In 2010, President Obama and Congressional Democrats pushed for passage of the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act passed the U.S. House, but in December 2010, it failed in the U.S. Senate. In the Senate, the DREAM Act got a majority of votes, but not the 60 percent needed for cloture to end a filibuster by Republicans.

Republicans in general have advocated mostly enforcement-only policies at the state level. Some, but not all Democrats, have defended against these policies. Largely, the discussion and various state actions have muddled the discussion concerning immigration, which is by law and logic a federal responsibility.

Rocky Anderson’s Approach Toward Solutions:

The United States must no longer be burdened with an outdated, economically unwise, and unwelcoming immigration system, where the laws do not match our nation’s practices, and our practices do not match our laws. A nation that has grown and prospered as a result of immigration requires a compassionate, reasoned approach. Leadership is needed to forge through the division that this issue is unnecessarily causing.

Rocky Anderson has long addressed immigration reform. In 1997, he opposed deputizing Salt Lake City police officers as agents for INS. After an immigration raid at the Salt Lake City International Airport by federal officials in 2001, Rocky Anderson, as Mayor of Salt Lake City, established the Family-to-Family program to address injustices suffered by immigrant families, to assist the families affected by the raids and subsequent deportation actions, and to increase understanding among the public about why immigrant families are in the U.S. and the challenges they face every day. He also sued and successfully challenged a state English-only law. He has consistently advocated for comprehensive immigration reform that would allow undocumented immigrants and families who have led otherwise law-abiding lives to stay in the U.S. to work and contribute.

In large part because of his efforts on immigration, Rocky Anderson received the first-ever Profile in Courage Award from the League of United Latin American Citizens (the largest Latino organization in the U.S.) and the Presidential Award from the National Association of Hispanic Publications.

Rocky Anderson’s approach toward an immigration solution would put qualifying undocumented immigrants on a path to legal residence and eventually citizenship to let them seek what we all seek—to work, to provide for their families, and to live in peace.

Immigration processes should be streamlined so that waiting lists do not extend toward an indefinite future. In matching laws to practices and practices to laws, visa quotas for unskilled and semiskilled workers must be raised to meet the law of supply and demand. In addition, to enhance our nation’s global competitive edge, the rules and regulations for highly skilled immigrant workers should be better tailored to U.S. economic needs.

Long-term immigration challenges cannot be solved unilaterally. The U.S. must develop stronger bi-national and multi-national relations with and among immigrant-sending countries to harness immigration for our economic and societal well being.

Integration of immigrants is critical at local, state, and national levels. The U.S. has long been a welcoming country for immigrants. Sadly, this reputation has suffered in recent years. Rocky Anderson will provide the strong leadership that forges through the gridlock, polishes the U.S. image, and builds on our history of integrating immigrants for the compassionate enrichment of our economy, society and culture.

Do you like this page?

Showing 40 reactions

Candice Crittenden commented 2012-11-05 14:50:39 -0700 · Flag

Imigration in this age has becoming ridculous! If you come from the south you stand a better chance wrestling an alligator than gaining legal employment in the United States…land of the free my behind! We all stem from some sort of immigration…let us not forget! on the other hand middle eastern and asians come over and are often given grants, loans and small buisness funds! I am not saying let everyone in… all I suggest is don’t discriminate! brown, yellow, red it doesn’t matter. Equal rights for all. We are all human. Being born in America doesn’t mean you are better. Half the americans I know are idiots, and the other half lazy and shallow minded. Who are we to say who deserves a chance and who doesn’t? I have several, Legal, friends that are here from Guatemala and Mexico, that work hard and never cause a problem. but they had to pay an entire life savings to get here, and wait years for approval while their families suffered and starved so America could make money…I am proud to be from the United States. but lack enthusiasm when stating that I am an American…We are creating a horrible name for ourselves. It’s time to get these Republicans and Democrats out of office! Let the Justice party show the world what Americans are supposed to be like.

Elizabeth Collins commented 2012-11-04 23:05:20 -0700 · Flag

I was with this guy up until this issue. I get where he is coming from but we cannot afford to give illegals free rides… the DO hurt us. I also don’t think we should be locking them up for being illegal, or throwing them back across the border UNLESS they have no interest in become a US citizen. However if they do then they should have the opportunity to become one and it should not be so complicated or as expensive as it is. They should not be given tax breaks, if they want to be one of us they have to jump in and suffer the injustices that we all do. And the even bigger issue it us and our attitude toward education. While it is very important to be educated we have someone created a world or scholars. It is what every child is taught to reach for and we have turn away from practical skills. Most children never even consider farming or textiles or anything like that unless is is a family business, and those who would rather work such jobs are looked down upon, as if they are underachievers. The other side of that coin is these jobs need to be able to provide for families to live comfortably off of or Americans can not afford to work them. Its a vicious cycle we need to get out of. We need to get back to the basics is education and explore EVERY possible future for our kids find out what they like and what they are good at and then hone those skills. Minimum wage needs to be a living wage, then Americans can work ALL jobs and be able to support their families!

Joel House commented 2012-10-26 13:46:19 -0600 · Flag

I haven’t seen a better immigration policy yet. Only complaining. I do know this, the issue of immigration looms larger the more university graduates have to vie for those fast-food jobs. I doubt we’ll see any of them picking crops, but if we do, we’ll know it’s over. Besides, they know better than to inhale Monsanto’s pesticides.

Jobs being shipped overseas wholesale is due to the tax code. It’s capitalized on by the Romney’s of the world. And they’re the ones screaming for cuts in everything that gives the little guy a chance.

Our education system ranking lower than other nations is just stupidity. Chucking freight cars of money at the Pentagon and the Spooks for the sake of corporate imperialism is just nuts. Billions in weapons just means they’ll find a use for them. The world economy would fail if we had free energy and legalized drugs. That’s a sad fact. So we need a new paradigm. We need to rethink what we should do and not worry about what used to be. The planet needs our support. Life on earth depends on our new ideas. We have to teach government to do no harm. We need to expect better from government and hold their feet to the fire. Get the money out of politics. Make war no more. If we could take care of everybody, why shouldn’t we? It’s a matter of distribution, not competition. It’s a matter of letting ourselves think of the possible instead of supporting the old top down power brokering. We need to make votes count again.

We should be rethinking our position in the world and expand our own horizons. We can and must invest in new technology for cheap renewable energy and upgrade out manufacturing base with those new and better products and systems. We’ll still need labor but people will be a lot friendlier about it, and they’ll be more open about bringing in willing workers when they have money in their pocket and security in their future.

Let the xenophobic yell, when times are good, there’s plenty for everybody. Don’t forget, there is a very select group who have made off with trillions the past few years. That’s because the system is screwed up, not because we have too many immigrants.

JH Gordon
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/98807

Randall Burns commented 2012-10-26 12:13:52 -0600 · Flag

Immigration policies can be humane without forcing american workers to pay the price for providing cheap labor to the wealthy. Many undocumented workers would happily leave the US if small cash incentives (say the level of $10,000/15000 were provided). These could be paid for by fine paid by illegal employers.

The minimum wage for undocumented workers should be twice that of citizens and that for non-citizens 50% above that of citizens. There simply is no reason to import labor until we have full employment among all citizens. Free legal aid can be provided to all non-citizens that need help enforcing those claims.

Illegal employers and illegal investors can be held as accomplices for crimes committed by workers for whom they have illegally facilitated immigration. All employers of legal guest workers should also be held accountable.

No citizens should be forced to pay for services provided for undocumented workers or guest workers-taxes for those should all fall squarely on the employers.

Non-citizens and undocumented workers should all be covered for universal health care-but the cost of those born by their employers and investors-and the property of violators confiscated if necessary to pay for the full cost.

The sad fact is that undocumented workers typically do NOT have health insurance, often do not have auto insurance. Citizens pay higher health care costs and deal with crowded emergency rooms to subsidize treasonous employers and investors. This must stop.

If Mexico refuses to patrol their own borders and act as a conduit for undocumnented workers from Central America, we can simply cancel Nafta.

We have 10 million applications for entry into the US each year via the lottery program alone. We in the US must be selective who we admit. At present the major job category of immigrants is housewife-and most are admitted because they are relatives of recent immigrants. Immigration should reflect the needs of the American people-not the wealthy and corporations.

I think we should have juries, chosen at random from the voter rolls interviewing each prospective immigrant. Immigration is an important decision and deserves at least as much consideration as choosing a room mate.

Indentured servitude via H-1b visas can be terminated. The only temporary visas that should be permitted are those allocated to true multinationals that are also hiring US citizens for overseas work. No employment based visas should be issued in any area in which US citizens are leaving that occupation.

Exploitation of foreign women in the sex trade should mean property confiscation-including the equity of lendors and the funds used to repatriate those women with humane conditions if they want to go home.
Fees for all spousal visas can be raised-and the funds used on providin services to those abused or neglected that want to return home-and to provide services in excess of what that class of visa holders pay in taxes on average.

The US can cease support of oligarchic governments that push their citizens into the US and push all nations to cooperate in making a real refugee solution.

The group which supports high immigration the most are the most very wealthy Americans. Their level of support is higher than even that of recent immigrants and their descendents.

We need a policy that has broad support among all parts of the American public if we want to really call ourselves progressive.

Christina Marlowe commented 2012-10-08 16:30:45 -0600 · Flag

On Willing Slaves: The Marching Morons Revisitedâ¦July 25, 2012
As we all know, the whole diabolical slavery scheme was deliberately engineered from the start by the WHITE POWER STRUCTURE; But in the late 20th century, the 1980â²s specifically, the emergence of the despicable demon, Ronald Reagan, his total embracing of the R-wing âChristianâ Fundamentalist-lunatics; the Total DEREGULATION of ALL industry; the fantastic lie of âtrickle-downâ economics; and the new âserviceâ economy (SLAVE); All set the new and more all-encompassing slavery on itâs completely ruinous and destructive path.
And every filthy administration after the bastard Reagan, followed in lock-step, with ongoing DEREGULATION of every single industry and privatization of previously public sectors.
Clinton, of course, was among the most destructive of these twisted, perverted white men, as he is the one that repealed the Glass-Stegal Act that had been put into place by FDR after the Great Depression of the 1930s. Clinton did it, knowing very well the history and the certain ramifications [of giving a gigantic idiot-child a machine gun, i.e. DEREGULATION]; So, doing it anyway for his billionaire buddies in the Banks and on Wall Street; That, along with the passing of the Graham-Leech Bill, took away any and all restraints, i.e. REGULATIONS, from the banking industry and the financial sector.. So, look around NOW. They tanked the economy deliberately; They want, for lack of a better term, Zombie-Slaves that wonât think or even ask why: (IDIOT-AMERICA).Yes, indeed, this was and still is quite deliberate, quite intentional. Straight back to another GREAT DEPRESSION, but THIS time, I do NOT see things getting betterâ¦Make no mistake: They WANT SLAVES. And, they HAVE endless supplies of poor, and apparently pretty damned stupid, Dupes…WILLINGLY working AS SLAVES.
So again, WHY arenât these people, en masse, ORGANIZING and REFUSING TO WORK with these kinds of slave wages and unspeakable conditions? It makes me literally sick that these people are WILLINGLY enslaving themselves to their Corporate SlaveMasters without ANY PROTEST!!!
What is WRONG with these people?? Are they just STUPID?? Peasants?? I cannot get over how willing so many people are to get RAPED REPEATEDLY, DAY AFTER DAY, without putting up ANY RESISTANCE!!!!! Hey LOOK!! Itâs The Marching Morons in REAL LIFE!!

Ima Person commented 2012-10-08 10:58:38 -0600 · Flag

This is why I can’t vote for Rocky Anderson. His call to “harness immigration” is a brazen and stunningly stupid argument for neo-slavery: wage slavery for migrants, and lower wages and benefits for all American workers.

Anderson’s promise to change immigration law to meet “supply and demand” suggests there’s a shortage of Americans willing to work construction, meatpacking, agricultural processing, landscaping, janitorial, and hotel and restaurant jobs (occupations now dominated by illegal migrants). But, in fact, there’s an abundance of Americans willing to take those jobs, especially in this time of high unemployment. The “demand” Anderson wants to meet is the demand of corporate America for lower labor costs.

(In 1969, starting pay in a meatpacking plant was $10/hr and full benefits. That’s $60/hr in 2011 dollars. Yet meatpacking jobs today pay just $10/hr. The “savings” goes to the Wall Street banksters who own the plants. How long would the line of applicants be tomorrow if today’s newspaper ran an ad for meatpacking jobs starting at $60/hr and full benefits?)

And, it’s not just the employees who are hurt. Conscientious employers who pay fair wages and benefits, despite the race-to-the-bottom that current federal policies encourage, are at a competitive disadvantage and at risk of going out of business.

Incredibly, Anderson’s proposals sneer at these good employers and their employees, and even suggest expanding low-wage policies to include “highly skilled” workers in order to “enhance our nationâs global competitive edge.” Think computer programmers, engineers, automobile assembly workers…

Anderson is a corporatist, and his policy proposals amount to nothing more than the same old trickle-down snake oil that corporate politicians have been selling us for the past thirty years.

Doug Bell commented 2012-09-13 19:38:50 -0600 · Flag

I meant Ralph. But Rocky will do.

Jerry Scott commented 2012-09-13 18:42:38 -0600 · Flag

Doug, Did you mean Rocky? Roger doesn’t ring a bell for me.

Doug Bell commented 2012-09-13 14:43:00 -0600 · Flag

And as someone once said, campaign finance is the one reform that makes all others possible.

Doug Bell commented 2012-09-13 14:32:05 -0600 · Flag

Thanks, Jerry. I appreciate your thoughts. And I agree with you that eliminating subsidies to the fossil fuel and military hardware industries would have a far greater effect on our ability to cut deficits and direct spending to more pressing needs than reducing social welfare spending through tougher immigration enforcement policies. A president like Roger could use the money saved on subsidizing oil and gas to produce cars that run on hydrogen, a technology that has been around since the ‘70s, which would greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have an almost immediate effect on global warming. The reason I’m so concerned about immigration is because changes in policy there would produce results much more slowly, in generations rather than years, because of the difficulty in transforming (or ‘assimilating’) a population that has already become an unsustainable underclass. The fact that the poverty rate of adult immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for 20 years is 50 percent higher than that of native adults tells us that changes better come soon or that underclass will be permanent.

In any case, Roger comes closest to representing my values on important issues and I’m looking forward to spreading the word and voting for him.

Jerry Scott commented 2012-09-13 12:55:13 -0600 · Flag

Doug, I see the poverty/welfare issue as small patatoes in comparison to the corporate welfare/money in politics/military-industrial-congressional complex issues. We spend $59 billion on social welfare programs, but more than $92 billion on corporate subsidies. According to the Environmental Law Institute, fossil fuel industries alone get more than $70 billion in subsidies, with most going to the oil and gas sector. The corporate welfare of the military-industrial complex is even worse. To me, a candidate that would effectively address those issues is more valuable than one with a solution to illegal immigration.

Doug Bell commented 2012-09-13 11:26:11 -0600 · Flag

I accessed this site through a link on the ‘Here and Now’ radio website after hearing an interview with Rocky. I can’t vote for either major party candidate this election (as in others past) because the trade-offs in choosing either are just too great. I voted for Ralph Nader thrice and would do so again, but as Rocky pointed out, Ralph was shut out of the 2008 debates by President Obama and the Democrats who would not tolerate the competition. So Rocky’s identification of money and the two-party system as the culprits responsible for our dysfunctional and unjust democracy really got my attention.

Not to my surprise, however, I find myself in agreement with others here, such as Deeth and Christina, who like Rocky and would vote for him in a heartbeat if only he saw things differently on immigration, because immigration is the elephant in the room that no one wants to address honestly.

Unfortunately, others equate support for immigration law enforcement with ignorance, prejudice and narrow-mindedness when quite the opposite it true. As Deeth suggests, our nation doesn’t stand a chance of maintaining our quality of life if politicians insist on ignoring the inconvenient truths about immigration that confront us:

- Immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for one-fourth of all persons in poverty and nearly one-third of the population lacking health insurance.

- In 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program (primarily food assistance and Medicaid) compared to 23 percent of native households.

- Of immigrant households with children, 57 percent accessed one or more welfare programs, compared to 40 percent of native households with children.

- The primary reason for high immigrant poverty and welfare use is the large share of immigrants who arrived as adults with relatively little education.

- The poverty rate of adult immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years is 50 percent higher than that of adult natives.

Given the projected growth rate of immigrants and their U.S.-born children, it is imperative that a fair and humane approach to immigration enforcement (which does not include amnesty) be implemented by the next president.

If Rocky could agree to this, he’s got my vote.

Beatriz Santiago commented 2012-08-16 01:37:00 -0600 · Flag

Rocky:

I am glad that you see immigrants as humans instead of a “totally uneducated and unskilled workforce that never stop procreating” as sadly some uneducated people see latin americans. I stand with Joel House and the “work visa” as one of the option for immigrants. If the job is being done by immigrants anyway let’s work around that reality and offer them the alternative to work without breaking the law. Some people mention billions of dollars that immigrants export but if the rich put his money in a swiss bank account instead of spending it here, will he be held accountable for what he’s doing with his money? There’s a double standard here. On the other hand if they’re working legally there can be a tax or some other way to ensure that some of the money stay in the country besides the money that they obviously spend here while they’re here which apparently seems to be very low according to some people opinion. (If anyone have a study with numbers to show how much money an immigrant export and how much it spend here that would be better than opinions). Let’s get over prejudice and mind narrowness and be humane people.

Christina Marlowe commented 2012-07-24 15:08:16 -0600 · Flag

Rocky:

I agree totally with Deeth Halleck’s comment; Unchecked immigration, illegal or otherwise, is not only totally unsustainable, but undesirable as well. More immigration, particularly immigration of a totally uneducated and unskilled workforce, brings nothing but more and more poverty, more and more people, too; it drains every type of resource imaginable. The overpopulation problem has never been more critical and it’s the poor, uneducated people that have more and more children that they cannot take care of, nor can the earth accommodate them.

Rethink this issue. It’s very important that you get it straight.

Christina Marlowe

Deeth Halleck commented 2012-07-03 21:32:40 -0600 · Flag

Rocky—

If you are serious about the environment and global warming, how can you support unchecked immigration into our nation? Immigrants, illegal or otherwise, have more children and use more resources here than they would in their home countries. In addition, illegal immigrants are loved by large, union-busting corporations. A massive flow of illegal immigrants provide them with labor that will work for cheaper, and in poorer conditions, than black or White Americans. Of course, there is the “one big tent” philosophy that “everyone, legal or illegal” deserves these rights. Its a fair enough thing to aspire to, but the truth of the matter is that whether they deserve them or not, illegals are not demanding them or receiving them NOW. And that’s what matters. Unchecked illegal immigration is the logical outgrowth of NAFTA, which bombarded the mexican economy with American agricultural products, primarily corn. This essentially put the small Mexican farmer out of business. It also sent American jobs south, but not enough to to be taken by all the downtrodden Mexicans, so many came north (also due to our drug war). The Mexicans then came to work here as slave labor for the overclass.

The bottom line is:

Illegal immigration is analogous to slavery. It provides corporations and agribusiness with a cheap labor pool. It is the enemy of the small farmer and the small businessman. The opposite is sustainability, where Americans provide for themselves and are dependent on the health of the Land.

I agree with most of your positions, but this one sticks out like a sore thumb. I hope you will reconsider. The U.S. consitutition specifically allows the federal government to regulate immigration.

Jerry Scott commented 2012-05-12 23:16:53 -0600 · Flag

Thanks for the response Joel, but I was responding to Rocky’s positions. I have no vote in your district, but your response is interesting. I will make a couple of comments on it. We don’t know what U.S. workers would do if farm work paid a livable wage package and more of them returning to the farm removed the perception that it was immigrant work. With the loss of manufacturing, the cutting of support for research and development, college and job training, and mechanization, the low skill jobs of ag might have to fill the bill. And a work visa program would stop the agribusinesses scamming the migrants, raising the cost of labor to a degree, will have some impact on the viability of agribusiness – perhaps not as much as livable wage packages. I never liked the business model of agribusiness because it exploits workers, undercuts ag prices in Mexico, and prevents small farmers who do the work themselves from paying themselves a wage higher than the undocumented workers in order to compete with the agribusinesses. Also, the agribusinesses paying sub livable wages leaves their workers dependent on assistance programs, externalizing the agribusinesses cost of doing business onto the rest of us. We’re basically paying more for are food than what we face at the checkout, which prevents us from maximizing our allocation of resources by not knowing what we’re paying, and therefore, what might be a better alternative. Organic might be a better choice if all products prices paid for all of the resources involved in their production. Agribusinesses’ growing practices don’t produce the healthiest products, wasting our food money, and our health and health dollars. As an example, The Ag dept only tests 40,000 cows, out of the millions slaughtered each year, for mad cow disease, while prohibiting ranchers from testing their own. It is heavily influenced by agribusiness, putting our health at risk. So I have no sympathy for the agribusinesses if they have to pay livable wage packages, and adjust their businesses accordingly.

Great, let’s legalize drugs and hemp. In addition, let’s stop messing up Mexico. In addition, let’s make micro loans to their start ups. Let’s help them have a life in their own country. You say we can’t stop it, but I thought I read that net immigration is near zero. And if we took the steps I mention in this paragraph, and really fined and imprisoned employers abusing the system, it would be an interesting time when/if our economy returns. By all means, let’s make our INS and BS more humane, and more efficient. But in this economy, cutting good paying jobs isn’t in our best interest. We have many negative events that add to GNP. If these are wasteful, they still are contributing to the velocity of money, and the multiplier effect, growing our economy.

You had a couple of non-secretor in your response when you point out that after a couple of seasons here, undocumented workers move into the higher paying jobs, displacing U.S. workers, and your statement that a guest worker program would prevent such. Also, you speculate that without immigrant workers, prices would increase. Youâre assuming cost push. But prices are set by supply and demand balances, which are impacted by tradeoffs and other options. Do we know how much labor contributes to cost? Transportation, middlemen, advertizing, commodity speculation, and other overhead costs could be pressured to adjust to make up for labor cost increases when resistance is met in the grocery stores. In the residential construction industry, demand/pull has impacted price more often than cost push, and the bottlenecks in the production chain often garnish a lot more profit than necessary to keep the people engaged.

The other impact you don’t mention is the billions of dollars the immigrants send back to their home country. That is an export that damages our economy. If documented, and drawing higher wages, logically, that outflow would increase.

Joel House commented 2012-05-12 08:20:48 -0600 · Flag

Jerry, I don’t know whether your post was a comment on mine. But I think I should point out I am not advocating amnesty. I am advocating a “work visa” that allows workers to return to their homes and families and incentive to do so in the form of a bond.

We can’t stop those workers. They come because the are allowed to come. That there is a wink-wink double-standard is obvious. That agribusiness could not exist without them is obvious, And since we make it harder on those workers to leave, it’s obvious they have to stay.

After a couple of seasons in the field they soon figure out they can make more money in construction or warehousing or the food industry which also would become more costly without them.

As it is, business is getting a great deal on very little in the way of taxes. The false SS numbers (for those actually paid on the books by payroll check) are paid into dead-end accounts and SS benefits from the revenue. The Mexican is made illegal on paper and business has a ready resource of off the book semi-slave labor who have no rights and are treated like criminals for wishing to feed their families.

Let’s not kid ourselves about field labor, Americans are not standing in line to do it but it must be done. That Cesar Chavez unionized that labor, we know they can be paid fairly and work under humane conditions. What we don’t have is control.

I suggest a Work Visa program with the worker putting up a bond. They already enrich the Mexican Mafia by two to four thousand dollars to be run through a dangerous desert only to be caught one out of nine or ten times. They lose everything and spend time in camps awaiting deportation only to drain family resources and try again. So, that should give you an idea of how much it means to them to take that risk. And you can’t very well fight that sort of need. Especially when in the cold light of reality, the “wet backs” are encouraged on almost every level.

Pay a $2500 dollar bond the the Border Patrol. Be issued an ID and a tax card. Report where you are working or lose your bond. Part of the bond is used for health insurance. A license to drive is issued if you pass the test and provide insurance. There is a health screening and you must provide your police record and a Mexican medical report. If you work, taxes are paid, and you return on time to your country, part of the bond is returned to you. Thanks for coming.

Now, with the billions spent on BS enforcement that fails, that $2500 per person would go a long way to giving the US control of who comes and who goes. It also means they have strong incentive not to become illegal in our country. They can go home to their families with money in their pocket and we can stop spending billions on hypocrisy and propagandized make-work-for useless cop fantasies. With a thousand or so in their pockets, a reasonable cost transfer of their wages via a bank, an easy accounting measure verifying taxes were paid and the employer isn’t fudging, we’d be billions better off and there’d be some honesty in the world.

Since we can’t stop it, we can save billions by controlling it. And we can become as humane as we claim to be. Those workers are needed. Lets not keep a system that incarcerates them inside our border and makes it necessary for them to stay. That’s what drives them to the “better jobs” you’re worried about.

Here’s another dynamic; if we started making sense and legalize hemp in this country and quit trying to stop people smoking harmless pot, and we coupled that with a money producing work-visa program, we’d damn near bankrupt the Mexican Mafia. No Coyotes, fewer drug gangs, far less violence, far fewer harmless pot heads in our jails, lots more tax revenue and we’d stop being hypocrites. What a deal. But it does take some common sense, so we shouldn’t expect it any time soon. Maybe Rocky could do something about it.

JH Gordon
Fireclosure
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/98807.

Jerry Scott commented 2012-05-12 02:40:59 -0600 · Flag

Since undocumented workers fill jobs that documented workers could fill, waiting in line in Mexico to obtain legal entry for unskilled workers makes no sense. Giving undocumented workers an avenue to documentation makes a farce of our borders. Amnesty was granted once before, and now we have millions more wanting a similar deal. Not a good idea. The value of labor is determined by the supply/demand balance. Since wages for unskilled labor leaves such workers with inadequate resources, they qualify for welfare, externalizing the employersâ responsibility for supporting their workers on to society. Setting immigration quotas to fill demand will eliminate shortages that would generate pressure for higher wages. Thus, the entire U.S. workforce would be undermined by allowing increased immigration to fill shortages claimed by industry that may not even exist. And if they do exist, filling the shortages from outside reduces the time the U. S. labor market has to adjust to fill the shortage.
It seems our infrastructure is overwhelmed, imports are more than exports â indicating we donât have adequate resources now and shipping our wealth out of the country, and adequate investments in upgrading and modernizing the infrastructure donât appear in the cards. How would you change that, given the Congress with which you would have to work through, to accommodate increased immigration?

Joel House commented 2012-05-11 13:52:08 -0600 · Flag

One thing that isn’t considered very much is the needs and wants of the Mexicans and other Latinos who venture here. If you ask them, they’ll tell you they’d rather not live here but getting home, (then returning to seasonal work particularly) is dangerous and costly.

They elect to stay for years and return home after other family members have finished school or they’ve saved enough to buy land in their country. If they could go home to their families once or twice a year, they’d do so. Our culture isn’t all that inviting and their families and communities are there, not here.

That they would move their families is largely for economic reasons. But they don’t really want to become Americans, they just seek the basics of life and if possible, better opportunities for their families. Those opportunities exist in Mexico but someone has to pay for the education. Mexicans would love to travel freely and very few wish to immigrate if they don’t have to.

Why not a work-visa program? Why not require a bond that is less than they pay to Mexican Mafia Coyotes?

Why not use part of that bond to supply basic accident and health insurance so they don’t burden emergency wards? We can verify all taxes have been paid (including the employer taxes) and we cannot now.

Why not return part of that bond when they return to their families and communities?

The Mexican Mafia makes billions and border enforcement costs us billions and American businesses benefit by illegal millions (no tax) from the paradox. The Mexicans are victims and so is the American tax payer.

A simple and reasonable system at our border will benefit everyone and improve the economies of both countries. It just makes common sense.

JH Gordon
Author of:
Fireclosure
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/98807

Gary Stein commented 2012-03-09 08:14:31 -0700 · Flag

add to your solution, this piece of the puzzle. one last amnesty for Mexican’s here illegally, once the Mexican gov’t invites our secret forces (which will be the most un-secret of missions because we’ll announce it to the entire world) to help track down and destroy the Mexican drug cartels. ok, you got it. now I’m with “Rock” ….. let’s both get elected. I’m running for Congress.

1 2 Next →