Illegal Immigration Reform-Guest Worker Program & Anchor Babies& Border Fence

[mrbowler]

I believe that I posted this on a different thread, but it is a good article.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"Even when violators are caught at the border, there is limited room at detention centers, so many are simply set free. They are told they have to report to a court within six months, and given letters to that effect. But more than 90 percent never do"

"Let me give you an example. Janitors in Century City and Beverly Hills, 10 years ago, were all making $11 an hour," says Anderson. "All of those companies got rid of the Americans, broke the union, brought in illegal aliens from Mexico and El Salvador. Paid them five bucks an hour. You gonna tell me those black janitors don’t still want those $11 jobs? Sure they do. They would probably be $15 jobs now. But guess what happened? They weren’t gonna take ‘em at $4 and $5 an hour."

"Adds Klein: "If they present us with the documents, we can’t look at them and just speculate that because they’re Hispanic or because they don’t speak English that they could be illegal.
According to the letter of the law, Klein is right. An employer is not obliged to prove that a worker is legally in the United States. He just has to make what is called a good faith effort.
So immigrants continue to pour through this loophole into America, where they will be illegal -- and unofficially welcome"

[mrbowler]

The cost arguement doesn't seem to hold as much weight that many are led to believe. According to this recent article I think many folks would be more then willing to accept the possible added costs in order to maintain border security & not have all the risk associated with Illegal Immigration plus all the indirect costs. So from a consumer standpoint according to different so called experts that most of the cost would not be able to be passed down to the consumer or a possible 5-10%. From a political point of view you would think that more farmers(owners) tend to lean towards the republican party-so it makes it difficult for them to balance a decision between better security and cheaper labor for business owners against farmers.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"He said that crop and livestock farmers, for example, would be forced to boost prices to compensate for more expensive labor. "We're estimating that wages could go up to $14.50 an hour," he said, from the current average of about $9.50 an hour.
In that case, "prices would go up possibly 5 to 10 percent as farmers try to pass along the higher cost of labor."

"A big rise in labor costs could also have a devastating effect on many of the nation's farms"

"If labor shortages forced costs to rise, it would be hard to pass those costs along," said Jack King, manager of national affairs for the California Farm Bureau, an association of farm owners in the state with a $27.5 billion agricultural industry"

"Patricia Cortes, a graduate student at MIT, studied the effect of low-skilled immigration on the prices of things like cleaning and landscaping, and also found that less immigrant labor would bid up the price of low-skilled jobs, which she says could lead to higher prices"

"Consumers would probably see little impact on prices of fruits and vegetables, for example, because "displaced American production would be replaced by production in countries like Mexico," said O'Brien at the American Farm Bureau, referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) from January 1994."

"The consumer would see the same head of lettuce at the same price," he said."

"Without migrant labor, "We would see up to a third of the fruit and vegetable sector go out of business almost right away," said Austin Perez, a labor expert at the American Farm Bureau."

[Rainmaker]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

Finally some action

Hope some other states follow suit.

Governor signs order to expand Guard role on border:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

“All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.” - Pat Paulsen, 1927-1997, American Comedian, Statesman and Politician.

[mrbowler]

Not many proposals these days garner the support from all-republicans, democrats, independents.

It appears that the Marches have backfired.


Americans Prefer House Approach on Immigration:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"A new Zogby poll of likely voters, using neutral language (see wording on following pages), finds that Americans prefer the House of Representatives’ enforcement-only bill by 2-1 over Senate proposals to legalize illegal immigrants and greatly increase legal immigration. The poll was conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies."

"Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea."

[mrbowler]

Will the desire of the American People prevail or will you get these limited actions that need to be done on a larger scale? I think the idea of a standard for which employers need to follow would make it more difficult for them to skirt the loopholes.


Crackdown on hiring of illegal workers shifts to employers:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

"Some immigrants and others opposed to stiffer enforcement have held protests, such as the ones Monday outside IFCO's offices. But critics say the government's current practice is to look the other way at employers who hire undocumented workers, creating an illegal immigrant crisis while unfairly giving employers who skirt the law a free ride."

"The Bush administration is committed to a policy of non-enforcement, and that's why the overall effort at enforcement is going to fail," says Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., non-profit research group focused on immigration. "We don't do anything to employers who hire illegals. There's a complete lack of commitment."

Employers who hire undocumented workers such as Reyes to do a host of jobs — from construction and meat packing to agricultural work and painting — rarely face penalties, even though a federal law passed in 1986 criminalized the hiring of illegal immigrants.

"In fiscal year 1999, the government issued 417 notices of "intent to fine" employers for knowingly making such illegal hires. But by 2004, that number had dropped to three, according to a June 21, 2005, Government Accountability Office report. Worksite enforcement amounted to less than 5% of all of the federal government's ICE investigation activities. Since 9/11, the government has "almost exclusively focused worksite enforcement resources" of illegal immigration on sites such as airports and nuclear power plants, according to the report."

She also says the current law is largely unenforceable. In order to successfully go after employers, the government has to show they knowingly hired illegal immigrants or continued to employ them after becoming aware they were not legal to work. But proving that, Avendano says, is almost impossible. Meanwhile, she says, employers can continue to hire undocumented workers and deny them decent wages, workers' compensation and other benefits.

"It's not that the government hasn't tried to enforce this, it's just that the legal standard benefits corporations," Avendano says.

Studies show Americans want the government to go after employers who hire undocumented workers. Eighty-four percent of Americans say it would be an effective step to institute tough penalties for businesses that employ illegal immigrants, according to an April USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

"This is the heart of the immigration enforcement debate," says Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at NumbersUSA in Arlington, Va., a non-profit public-policy organization that wants stronger federal immigration enforcement.

"There clearly has been virtually no enforcement to this point. The vast majority (of illegal immigrants) are coming for jobs," she says. "If we don't have worksite enforcement, we don't have deterrence. We can build a wall around the country, but you can't do anything as long as there are jobs."

"Jenks says past efforts to crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants have run into snags as business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and immigrant-advocacy organizations complain about enforcement."

[mrbowler]

Golly..Look what happens when you put some action to work.

Better cut this out or we might have to hire American Workers

Business is not going to like Bush for doing this-all I can say it is about time


Troops reducing illegal border crossings:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

The arrival of U.S. National Guard troops in Arizona has scared off illegal Mexican migrants along the border, significantly reducing crossings, according to U.S. and Mexican officials.
U.S. authorities said Monday that detentions along the U.S.-Mexico border decreased by 21%, to 26,994, in the first 10 days of June, compared with 34,077 for the same period a year ago.

Along the Arizona border, once the busiest crossing spot, detentions have dropped 23%, according to the U.S. Border Patrol.

Detentions dropped 31%, to 8,308 from 11,977, along the Texas and New Mexico border.

"The soldiers aren't allowed to detain migrants and have been limited to projects like extending border fences and repairing roads, but the military's presence is keeping would-be crossers away from the area, migrant rights activists said."

"Wearing Army fatigues and hard hats, the soldiers have worked on projects such as installing vehicle barriers to help prevent smugglers from driving cars full of migrants or drugs across the border."

[katlnhats]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

"And I understand New Orleans is being rebuilt by illegal aliens, who truly ARE the only ones who want the jobs being offered. They are getting $10 an hour (an enormous sum in Mexico), and most Americans don't want the jobs, perhaps because they are afraid of long-term effects from the contaminants"

I have to disagree that most americans don't want the jobs...I have people talk about dirty jobs that no american wants to do-Tell me I see Americans working in dirty coal mines, and check out this video (a couple months old)...
I'm sure leadership has made all necessary changes

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Thanks again for the link. I, too agree that many Americans would want these jobs. Especially if they're working in something worse or equally as bad, and making "less" than $10.00 per hour. And there are many who are doing just that.
There is another consideration, at least for me. How many, IF any of the illegals know anything at all about the building (or re-building industry). How many foremans that do, know how to speak Spanish? There is the possibility/probability of some huge rebuilding mistakes.

Kat

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by katlnhats

Thanks again for the link. I, too agree that many Americans would want these jobs. Especially if they're working in something worse or equally as bad, and making "less" than $10.00 per hour. And there are many who are doing just that.
There is another consideration, at least for me. How many, IF any of the illegals know anything at all about the building (or re-building industry). How many foremans that do, know how to speak Spanish? There is the possibility/probability of some huge rebuilding mistakes.

Kat

I wonder if anyone has looked into the possibility of working with Puerto Rico-I believe they have a higher unemployment rate then the national numbers.

[katlnhats]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

I wonder if anyone has looked into the possibility of working with Puerto Rico-I believe they have a higher unemployment rate then the national numbers.

Probably not, that would make sense! LOL


KAT

[mrbowler]

I say give it a try

Another example of how not having a uniform standard-especially between cities within a state might hamper enforcement.

Troopers would arrest immigrants:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

Governor Mitt Romney is seeking an agreement with federal authorities that would allow Massachusetts state troopers to arrest undocumented immigrants for being in the country illegally.

Currently, State Police have no authority to arrest people on the basis of their immigration status alone, said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. If they arrest immigrants for violations of state law, troopers can call a centralized US Immigration and Customs Enforcement center in Vermont to check on their status, and can detain immigrants if federal officials request it.

Under the agreement Romney is seeking, troopers would have greatly expanded powers: They could check an immigrant's legal status during routine patrols such as during a traffic stop and decide whether the immigrant should be held.

``It's one more thing you can do to make this a less attractive place for illegal aliens to come to work," Romney said.

The governor has instructed his legal counsel to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement to begin the process. The powers, Romney said, would give the State Police a way of ``finding and detaining illegal aliens in the ordinary course of business."

Federal immigration authorities would provide the troopers with 4 1/2 weeks of training in immigration laws and procedures, civil rights, and avoiding racial profiling.

If the proposal is approved, Massachusetts would join a handful of states and localities that have entered into such pacts since they were first authorized in 1996. That list includes Florida, Alabama, and a few counties in California and North Carolina, where a limited number of officers have been trained to enforce immigration laws.

The agreement would not require legislative approval, said Fehrnstrom.

The arrangement is likely to be controversial in Massachusetts, where Cambridge, for example, has passed a resolution declaring itself a sanctuary for immigrants, and moves are underway in other cities to follow that example.

Immigrant and civil rights advocates derided the plan yesterday, saying that turning troopers into immigration enforcement agents would lead to racial profiling and have a chilling effect on immigrants who might otherwise report crimes.

``This will overwhelm the State Police force, it will hinder real law enforcement, real community law enforcement, and it clearly will lead to racial and ethnic profiling," said Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. ``That's not effective law enforcement, or effective immigration policy."

Police across the state have put great energy into convincing immigrants that they should report crimes without fear of drawing scrutiny from immigration authorities, said Rose and others, and empowering state troopers to enforce immigration law against undocumented immigrants who have broken no state laws would undermine that trust. Domestic violence advocates said they also feared that the agreement would make immigrant victims afraid to report those crimes.

``If we are going to encourage people to call the police for help while in danger, but those police might come to their door and ask for their green card, people are going to hide even more than they already do," said Laurie Holmes, executive director of Chelsea-based HarborCOV, a domestic violence organization.

Fehrnstrom rejected those criticisms. Undocumented immigrants have broken the law just by being here, he said, and the state needs to take action against them.

``It's not a very effective argument to say that people who are in the country illegally will be less likely to report crime if they themselves are arrested," he said. ``If we applied that principle across the board, we wouldn't arrest anybody for anything for fear it would deter crime reporting."

The proposal greatly pleased those who favor stricter immigration control. Some officials are feeling frustrated with the lack of action in Washington to address a rapidly growing immigrant population.

``I think that's a good thing," said Representative Marie J. Parente, a Milford Democrat whose community has enacted licensing regulations that make it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to settle there.

``We need to do something," Parente said. ``I think that will be a message, that the state of Massachusetts welcomes you if you're within the law."

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, has received many calls from states and counties seeking information on the agreements and is working with a dozen government entities to craft memoranda of understandings tailored to their needs, said Mike Gilhooly, communications director for the department's New England division.

The agreements give federal authorities more muscle, Gilhooly said. ``It's a force multiplier," he said.

Most of those already in place are narrow in scope: in Florida, 63 officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, who are already focused on domestic security, have the authority to act when they encounter undocumented immigrants. In Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties in California, Mecklenberg County in North Carolina, and in Arizona, jail officers have been trained to locate undocumented immigrants among those being held and to begin deportation proceedings with federal authorities.

Alabama's agreement, which is similar to what Romney is seeking, authorizes 44 state troopers to enforce immigration law.

``They are enforcing immigration law in the course of their duties," Gilhooly said. ``They are not involved in major immigration operations on a daily basis. They are performing their duties, and when they encounter immigration violations or criminals who are illegal aliens, they can and do take action."

A spokesman for the State Police said officials were not available yesterday to respond to Romney's proposal.

[katlnhats]

Interesting and if it ever comes to pass, we're actually "very" close to the MA border and I noticed CT isn't included (what else is new?). It would be very easy for illegals to simply cross over into CT, no border patrol here and we've got plenty of illegals here now!

Kat

[mrbowler]

Looks like not enough troops to attend to domestic security issues.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]


The Bush administration has been unable to muster even half of the 2,500 National Guardsmen it planned to have on the Mexican border by the end of June.

As of Thursday, the next-to-last day of the month, fewer than 1,000 troops were in place, according to military officials in the four border states of Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona.

President Bush's plan called for all 50 states to send troops. But only 10 states — including the four border states — have signed commitments.

Some state officials have argued that they cannot free up Guardsmen because of flooding in the East, wildfires in the West or the prospect of hurricanes in the South.

"It's not a combat priority. It is a volunteer mission," said Kristine Munn, spokeswoman for the National Guard Bureau, an arm of the Pentagon, "so it's a question of balancing the needs of the Border Patrol with the needs of 54 states and territories, and all those balls roll in different directions."

Bush's plan for stemming illegal immigration by using National Guardsmen in a support role called for 2,500 troops to be on the border by June 30, and 6,000 by the end of July.

But National Guard officials said Thursday that they probably won't reach the 2,500 target until early to mid-July and won't make the 6,000 deadline, either. Also, they said the number of troops will fluctuate from week to week over the course of the two-year mission.

"We now anticipate major waves in our deployment. There won't always be 6,000. That will be the maximum," Munn said.

South Carolina's adjutant general said Wednesday he wants to wait until after hurricane season to send 150 Guardsmen.

"South Carolina's hurricane plan requires 1,600 troops to work along the coast during an evacuation and we double that number" to be extra-careful, said South Carolina Guard spokesman Col. Pete Brooks. "If we have a storm like Katrina hit, we'd have every Guard member who's not in Iraq somewhere out on the street."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said earlier this week that reports of problems with the border deployment were "overblown."

Major problems began to appear last week when California, which has already committed to sending 1,000 troops, said it turned down an administration request for 1,500 more to cover expected shortfalls in the numbers sent by Arizona and New Mexico.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's spokesman, Adam Mendelsohn, said that the state is leading all others in contributing troops and that the shortfalls are not California's responsibility.

"The governor is prepared to do whatever it takes to secure California's border," he said, "However, at the start of fire season, we cannot send troops to New Mexico and Arizona and other states when we already have 1,000 troops committed to this."

[katlnhats]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

"Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea."

Ok, am I missing something here or is this reading as though Hispanics have their own party now? LOL

Kat

[katlnhats]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

Golly..Look what happens when you put some action to work.

Better cut this out or we might have to hire American Workers

Business is not going to like Bush for doing this-all I can say it is about time
"

Hmmm, what happens in this instance when you put some action to work? Pretty much nothing!
We're ""supposedly"" trying to keep illegals from crossing over - we are not succeding, and there are so many already here that nobody will ever find, this approach seems idiotic.
I wish I could find the article I was reading the other day, and I will keep looking as it showed border patrols being set-up, while at the same time, farmers on the US side, were putting up ladders on their fences so as to make places for the illegals to just 'climb' over - though they said it was because they were constantly having to repair holes in their fences, it still looked pretty funny.

Kat

[mrbowler]

Looks like some real good work being done.

US Guard deployment curbs crossings from Mexico:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

NOGALES, Arizona (Reuters) - The deployment of National Guard troops along the U.S. border with Mexico since June has cut the number of illegal immigrants crossing into the United States by 43 percent, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Thursday.

President George W. Bush ordered 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in May as a stopgap measure to boosting frontier security for two years while more Border Patrol officers are recruited.

Speaking at a news conference in this sun-baked city on the Arizona-Mexico border, Chertoff said the deployment of troops had added "real value" to Border Patrol enforcement and cut the number of illegal immigrants apprehended by 43 percent.

"The bottom line is results ... They have done magnificently and contributed to national security in a very, very real way," said Chertoff, who was flanked by National Guard and Border Patrol agents at a Border Patrol station.

The total number of arrests during the period was not immediately available, but last year, the Border Patrol nabbed almost 1.2 million people trekking north over the rivers and deserts of the 2,000-mile (3,200-km) border with Mexico -- some 40 percent of them south of Tucson, Arizona.

Bush ordered the troop deployment as part of a broader proposal to overhaul immigration laws and tighten security on the porous southwest frontier.

It sought to give many among an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States a chance at citizenship, while boosting the number of Border Patrol agents by half to 18,000 over two years.

Chertoff, said sending soldiers to the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas since June had freed up Border Patrol agents to concentrate on enforcement.

Soldiers assigned to the border are not empowered to make arrests, but act in a support role as the "eyes and ears" of the Border Patrol, Chertoff said.

The 1,190 troops on duty in Arizona carry out tasks ranging from building vehicle barriers and access roads along remote stretches of border, to spotting for illegal immigrants crossing north along clandestine trails.

The Border Patrol's spokesman for the Tucson sector said the number of apprehensions since the start of the operation had fallen by more than a quarter over the same period last year, and described the troop presence as "extremely helpful."

"It allows us to get out and patrol, and maintain control over the border," Jesus Rodriguez told Reuters.