CP/Ruchir:
CP's original point was "Illegal immigration is probably a bigger menace than anything we are doing in the middle east" .. which is what I refuted.
Now as to what the candidates can do about it.. I think in the short-term (next year or so) not much ..but a lot in the next 4 years. That is where the difference between the candidates is.. a mindset, an approach to tackle the issues related to Iraq war and middle east (in general). We cannot continue to lose American/Iraqi lives and spend this much money forever. With the current administration and a few republican candidates (specially the clueless Huckabee and Mr Security - Guiliani), we will see the continuation of "more of the same"... which is bad policy/thinking combined with bad & incompetent execution.
On illegal immigration, it is a complex issue.
Philosophically, I believe in free trade of goods and services. The "illegal" immigrants actually bring services to this economy that is needed in this economy at the cost that they provide it at - otherwise they wouldn't be here. Simplistically, just like an American consumer enjoys a $2 Chinese-made toy (a good), why cant they enjoy the benefit of a $6-7 per hour service of a mexican laborer (as long as it is provided in decent conditions defined by our government). I think the problem is more of our immigration policies - we have put unnecessary restraints on movement of labor through "jingoistic" approaches...which are not grounded in reality. We had a large-scale amnesty program in late 80s. Since then we have added 15-17mm illegal immigrants. Proves to me that our government in Washington cannot figure out what the market wants. The immigrants are here to make a living and businesses are hiring them because they need them. Our blanket policy of branding them all as "illegal" .. is just silly. We need a policy and an approach (perhaps something like a guest worker program) that addresses this economic dynamic while protecting "American culture" - whatever that is - so that mass immigration does not change the nature of the American society dramatically. Over time, change is inevitable!
BTW, the state I live in .. AZ .. suffers (or benefits, depending on your perspective) the most (I think even more than CA) from "illegal" cross-border migration of people. You just need to go to the emergency room. It is ridiculous.. the wait times can be as high as 4 hrs .. just for the attending nurse/physician to see you. The health insurance premiums for my small business has gone up by an average of 22% (yes, that is more than 5 times inflation!!) each year over the past 5 years...even though we have had no change in demographics or health or usage of services by our employees. I am facing the brunt of this ..yet, I think nationally it is not a central issue...and the solution is to find a better market-oriented approach to this problem rather than criminalizing immigration.
Also, note what AZ is doing this year .. let's see what impact it has.
--
Dec. 29, 2007, 3:09PM
All eyes on Arizona's bold immigration experiment
By FROMA HARROP
What would happen if the United States seriously enforced the ban on hiring undocumented workers? We may find out starting New Year's Day, when Arizona promises to do it locally.
The Arizona law is tough. Companies that knowingly employ illegal workers will have their business licenses suspended for a first offense and permanently revoked for the second.
The law clearly sees the workplace — not the state's 376-mile border with Mexico — as the main front in curbing illegal immigration. As a result, it could very well succeed.
Supporters of open borders predict economic chaos as Arizona companies lose access to cheap labor. Will dishes go unwashed and lawns unmowed? We shall see.
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano reluctantly signed the law but vows to enforce it. A moderate Democrat, she maintains a close relationship with the governor of Sonora, the Mexican state to her south. She was also the first American governor to ask for National Guard reinforcements along the border.
Immigration happens to be Washington's responsibility. Federal law already forbids employers to hire undocumented workers. Until very recently, the Bush administration virtually ignored the ban. Whenever anger at this dereliction grew politically problematic, Bush would stage some new military show at the border.
The troop movements provided a nice distraction but seem to have only modestly cut the flow of illegal immigrants. Folks from every continent enter the United States unlawfully through portals far from Mexico. Nearly half of all undocumented workers came here legally but overstayed their visas.
What the fixation on the border does is create unnecessary friction with Latin America. It seems to single out one ethnic group, discomforting even native-born Hispanics who object to illegal immigration. Roughing up poor peasants makes for an ugly visual, as do high fences facing what's supposed to be a good neighbor.
Without the job magnet, of course, most illegal aliens would simply not come here. That would free law enforcement to go after the bad actors trying to enter. The Mexican border would become a far more peaceful crossing that allows an easy back-and-forth of shoppers, tourists, friends and family members.
The question remains, how essential is illegal labor to America's prosperity? One thing is clear: The people who want it should not be providing the answers.
The National Journal asked Napolitano about "business community" complaints that Arizona's law would hurt the local economy. Napolitano said that she hears them, but other parts of the "business community" are telling her, "We're tired of competing against companies that are hiring illegally and therefore don't have to pay the same wages we pay."
And there are nonlabor concerns. Explosive population growth, fueled in part by illegal immigration, has created environmental challenges throughout the water-short Southwest. On the social side, a massive influx of impoverished people with little English makes the task of providing education and other services that more vexing.
The president does not seem to share these anxieties. As a cheap-labor conservative, Bush's warm spot for open borders is understandable.
Less explicable are the views of diversity liberals who otherwise despise the man but attribute his policies to a soulful feeling for Mexico. A recent New Yorker article saw Bush's tolerance of illegal immigration through the prism of his experience as governor of Texas, a border state with deep Hispanic roots. No mention was made of Bush's long record as a stomper of labor standards wherever they might impair corporate profits.
Back in Arizona, Napolitano is now readying implementation of a major new immigration law. While it is not totally to her liking, she sees few alternatives. When it comes to fixing illegal immigration, Washington won't become functional anytime soon — and Arizona can't wait.
Harrop is a syndicated columnist based in Providence, R.I. She can be e-mailed at
fharrop@projo.com .
Poll
3 (25%)
AuthorTopic: US 2008 Presidential Primaries : Republican Nomination : IOWA (Read 2285 times)
August 17, 2006, 04:19:19 PM