I am personally against the bill. For one, I don't believe a state has or should have the ability to change or protect someone's undocumented/unauthorized immigrant status. I don't even understand why people might think we can...yes, States must obey federal laws. But no, the Federal government does not have to recognize state laws when there are federal laws that supersede them.
And two, it's all about the money. I love the beginning where it described that many Americans don't want to work in farm & labor type jobs. While that may or may not be true (more research is needed before I choose my side), it definitely highlights the motives behind such a bill, money...money...money... I don't think that there is anything wrong with making a buck but lets find another way to do; one that does NOT promote unauthorized immigration. This is another example of government policy that would promote a negative behavior (disregarding the law, i.e. not going through the proper channels for legal immigration or staying past the original visa time frame).
There's a saying that politics makes strange bedfellows. Remember when Orrin Hatch worked with Ted Kennedy to get the SCHIP program going?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, George W. Bush's comprehensive immigration reform bill [the last one to make it to Congress] included provision for a guest worker program for undocumented workers. There were other tougher provisions, too, in that bill, but it never made it to the Senate floor for an up or down vote. There was bi-partisan opposition to it.
When Bush proposed the legislation, the economy had not "tanked," and indeed employers were looking for workers to do the jobs most Americans would not do [many of them could get better jobs, or were getting higher levels of education]. The rise of the crackdown on illegal immigration largely parallels the changes in our economy.
I want to invite the rest of you to weigh in on this issue. I just wanted to provide some recent historical background on this issue.
I have to say that I see some truth to the idea that there are jobs that some may not result to. I remember when it was often said to teenagers, "do good in school, you don't want to flip burgers for the rest of your life." If working at a burger shop is seen as a low-end career, then picking lettuce from a field must be considered even less. Please know that I am not demeaning any job, all are important. I'm focusing on career choice and prestige or how the majority view jobs. I would think that most would say that owning a burger shop has more prestige than flipping burgers for that owner. Similarly being a farm owner and manager has more prestige than being the lettuce picker. Getting back to what was said in the article, being a burger flipper has more prestige than being a lettuce picker (lettuce picking, by the way, is not easy. I saw this on a show once - Undercover Boss, I think). Career choice and prestige being the way that it is, makes it so that most Americans raised and educated here would not choose to work in the fields as a career.
ReplyDeleteI do see your point David that State laws should go along with Federal laws and not supersede them. At the same time, States should be able to govern themselves. The Federal government is there to be sure that State government is not taking advantage of the people.
As conflicting as this bill is for me, I'm happy to see some action being taken.
What I like best about the video I posted about an immigrant family, is that it shows the perspective of the family. I'm a what-if person. I always think of situations that my family and I might find ourselves in and what I would do. This usually has to do with natural disasters or acts of terrorism, but what would I do if my family was starving, and lived in a hole. I would do whatever it took to improve the situation.
I am doing that now as I go to school. I am seeking to break the poverty cycle that exists in mine and my husband's families. I am getting higher education, I will get a good paying job, and I will do what I can to provide funds and opportunities for future generations. There is a great cost that comes with my decision: my personal value of being an optimal mother by staying home and focusing on my children. I was able to be with them for three years and enjoyed every minute, but I also worried constantly about our financial situation and for the future so I took action.
Frank in the video put it best, Putting politics aside, I understand why they've done what they've done.
I am all for this bill! It does not grant citizenship, nor does it provide a pathway to citizenship. It would make it so any illegal worker could legally work. This means that the money could be taxed.
ReplyDeleteThe ACLU is against it because it does not guarantee undocumented workers won't be deported. This bill makes it so documented workers won't be deported which is great, undocumented workers should not enjoy any protection. I also like the immediate family permit, it helps keep families together.
The ACLU also claims the bill is unconstitutional. I don't think so. There is no doubt that it would lead to legal battles, but states have long been able make their own decisions. I think most of the constitutional objections work off the mistaken belief this bill creates citizenship. Anyone working under the license would no longer be undocumented. I think there is a distinction between citizen, documented, and undocumented. It would also bring in revenue.
I fundamentally disagree with the argument that Americans won't do certain jobs. I think that is true of many Americans but I don't think there would be any unfilled jobs if there were not any immigrants.
As I understand it (and I really don't think I do), is that there four reasons for not allowing people to enter the country and deporting illegal immigrants: first, a large surplus of jobless people the state is going to have to look after, criminals or other such troublemakers entering the country at will and causing harm, immigrants being hired for pitiful sums, undermining the wages already achieved by native workers, and, lastly, prejudice. Examining the first three reasons for controlling immigration, it would seem that, if no one really is wanting these jobs, then we won't be undermining the economy. However, I am not sure of this one, and Aaron, whose intelligence I have nothing respect for, disagrees with this argument, although he agrees with the bill in general.
ReplyDeleteWill it prevent or encourage criminals to enter the country and encourage criminal behavior? Perhaps, but then again, perhaps not. I have been leery of predicting anything that detailed since Dewey lost to Truman.
As for the first reason, it would seem that if there seems to be a need for immigrant workers, a group of unemployed immigrants is not anticipated.
As for other benefits, it makes me feel good to keep families together. I think it's a nice thing to do. And it would be nice to get another source of taxable revenue. But what if the bill does encourage illegal behavior by countenancing existing illegal behavior? Would the costs outweigh the benefits? Again, I do not know. It's relatively easy to see whether something was a good idea after the fact, but for now I can't tell.
On an unrelated note, wasn't one of the symptoms of the decaying Roman Empire the outsourcing of undesirable jobs (i.e. the military) to barbarians? I wonder if South America will became the center of world power in a few centuries.
Another bill that I can see both sides of. First off, I don't see how this bill could ever pass. It would be giving a false hope to many people.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I am in many ways in favor of this. My extended family owns a ranch and we rely on workers from Peru to do part of the sheep herding. For many years we hired a father and one of his sons to come and stay full-time with the sheep. They would live here for three years before having to go back to Peru for a few months. They were then allowed to come back and work for another three years. Talking with the father, his greatest wish was to be able to bring his family here and give them a better life. Even being away from them for so long, he considered himself one of the lucky ones because he was able to work here, have all his needs provided for, and he would send all his earning back to his family. This bill would have allowed him to bring his family with him.
I can see many problems coming up with the bill. What happens when it comes time for the family to go back - will they? If they are working hard and supporting themselves, I think they should be able to stay here, but why not at that point give them citizenship? What happens to any kids that they have while here? Those kids are US citizens. If raised here for several years, they will have a hard time adjusting a new life and new country. What happens when the federal government plans another raid and deports everyone? Families will be torn apart.
I do like that they are considering families in this bill. They realize that having families here may help immigrants. Crime may also go down because they will have their family as support and will have more incentive to stay out of trouble. Interesting bill - it will be interesting to see how it changes and if it is accepted.
I along with many here like the family aspect of this bill. Keeping families together is important. What you say Lauralee is interesting to me, about how families coming together then going back, and possibly doing it again. It reminds me of the military family that moves often. If done right, everyone will be okay. Even if children are born here in the U.S., I can see that going back and forth would be difficult, but not traumatizing. I can also see it as an advantage for the future of that family. Any children who are born here would have the ability to come to the United States legally and work or go to school when the become adults (18). Then with time the parents and the rest of the family would be able to come after the child has established him or her self and all legal hoops have been jumped.
ReplyDeleteSo if families are patient and they focus on raising a healthy family, this bill could be good for them in the long run.
David, Please post updates on this bill as they become available.
ReplyDelete