Why "amnesty" is a good thing

[Kulindahr]

I was reading a news article this morning that changed my view of immigration a bit. It seems that strict enforcement of the immigration laws has been having an interesting side effect (given the entanglement of large corporations with the government, I'm not going to claim it was "unintended"): family-owned businesses are being put out of business.

The article focused on a dairy in the Dakotas. To keep from going under to the agri-corporations, they'd had to seek cheaper labor, which meant Mexicans. They had an manager who had training in spotting forgeries, and all the papers for all their hirees passed scrutiny.
But the scrutiny wasn't good enough, and the immigration authorities descended on the farm, handcuffed the owners, and took away a huge chunk of their workforce. As a result, the business may fail -- and of course it will be a giant agri-corp that buys it up.

There is no humanity in the immigration law application. It isn't just destroying small businesses, it's breaking up families, it's unevenly applied, and it gives a police-state impression that is bad all the way around.

I'm not thrilled about granting "amnesty" to an entire unknown population. But I strongly believe that the word "knowingly" should be in the law regarding employers, because papers that pass trained scrutiny, or even untrained scrutiny, obviate the guilt of those doing the hiring. And for the employees, if they have a good work record, instead of being jailed and deported, they should be left in place, and have a fine levied (dependent on income and length of employ), and be put on probation... to include language and citizenship classes and obtaining a G.E.D. or equivalent.

Such people have met the traditional "requirement" for U.S. residency: success. They've become a part of the community, they're not harming anyone, they're paying their way. Yes, they broke a law, but since the actual objective of law is a peaceful society, they're in compliance with the spirit of it.

Before anyone pounces on this as contradicting what I've said about the border: I still say we need a wall, and stiff penalties for crossing attempts. But common law has long recognized "squatters' rights", and that aspect ought to apply to these people who have become part of America, not just parasites.

 

[jackoroe]

First, I agree that we need a wall, fence, high tech or otherwise. If we don't do that first, we'll never get control of the borders. Then we need to ferret out those who broke the law, they need to leave and to come back in a legal way, if they so desire.

I'm not prepared to give any companies a break. If there was no market for illegal labor, there would be no incentive for these folks to sneak in to the US. They also benefit, unfairly, by taking advantage of illegals. In my view, they are the most culpable for this mess.

We've given amnesty before. It does no good and simply encourages more people to break the law. This cycle must stop!

 

[RandomAccess]

The New Colossus
by Emma Lazarus
Inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" ​

I guess they're just meaningless words today. Sure, let's build a wall.

 

[Sausy]

I do think there must be better enforcement at the border.We can't continue to leak like a sieve millions per decade crossing into the US.That said,you just can't remove millions already here,some having put down roots and have children who are Americans by birth and who have a chance at a better future.Amnesty of some kind is the only thing that makes any real sense.But a guest worker program with the possibility of allowing eventually for some kind of legal residency/citizenship in a disciplined,lawful manner should be strongly considered.In the end,though.....if Mexico doesn't work with the US on enforcement of the border,however..if they cannot ultimately grow their economy to satisfy the needs of its population(And in turn have a more open policy with their Central American neighbors,who also wind up here through the border...what's good for us should be good for them)then the frustration and cynicism the whole immigration reform attempt engenders will be most understandable.

 

[Legend500]

Walls are a horrible idea. For 1 reason, they don't work. Ask Genghis Kahn (who got over the Great Wall), ask East Germany, ask the Protestants in Northern Ireland. This "great" country, based on freedom and immigration, building huge walls to keep people out because we're cowards. America is great, and people will come to our shores. What does it say of our people, when we refuse to extend the Blessings of Liberty on all who come because "they've broken the law" (so have speeders and homo-sexuals) or they speak an odd language (like the Irish, Germans and Chinese before them). Cowards.

 

[iman]

It aint amnesty, there are considerable penalties which apply. This is the one bill that Bush got right and his nativist right wing killed it.

Legal immigrant workers must be able to be identified by the employer. I don't know of any other way to do that other than ID Cards and that means we may all need ID cards (which the right wing will also oppose), a National ID system is long overdue.

 

[cityboy-stl]

I guess they're just meaningless words today. Sure, let's build a wall.

I don't think it's supposed to mean let anyone who wants to just walk over the border unrestricted which is what you seem to be implying. This country is built on immigration. The United States accepts more legal immigrants every year than any other country in the world. The words on the Statue of Liberty are not being diminished.

Let's get some terms clear in this discussion. Immigrants are people who come here to be part of this country and part of this society. Being part of this country means obeying the law and following the rules just like everyone else must do. Illegal aliens are not immigrants! Doing an end-run around the law is not what I call being a good citizen - which they are not! Now I'm not for building a wall either for the reason stated, I don't think it will work. But we must get control of our borders and our ports. We have no idea who up to 20 million illegal people are. It's a massive security risk in terms of crime, drugs, identify theft, forged documents and terrorism. It's a massive resource drain in terms of welfare and public benefits being stolen by illegals. And excuse me, it is also an insult to law-abiding citizens when illegal aliens get rights, benefits and privileges they have no legal right to. I have to follow the law - why should they get an exemption?

Isn't it typical of the Bush administration though to go after a small private family dairy when it's the big corporations that are driving the illegal alien job market? They won't do anything about that however will they?

Besides, I've heard Lou Dobbs talk about how the U.S. already has 20 guest worker programs for people who want to work here temporarily. Why aren't these people applying for them? Too much trouble? Easier to break, enter and steal your way in I suppose. I hate bureaucracy as well but have to follow it. It's the rule of law! Too Bad. If you want to come here, follow the law people!

 

[Legend500]

Let's get some terms clear in this discussion. Immigrants are people who come here to be part of this country and part of this society. Being part of this country means obeying the law and following the rules just like everyone else must do. Illegal aliens are not immigrants! Doing an end-run around the law is not what I call being a good citizen - which they are not! Now I'm not for building a wall either for the reason stated, I don't think it will work. But we must get control of our borders and our ports. We have no idea who up to 20 million illegal people are. It's a massive security risk in terms of crime, drugs, identify theft, forged documents and terrorism. It's a massive resource drain in terms of welfare and public benefits being stolen by illegals. And excuse me, it is also an insult to law-abiding citizens when illegal aliens get rights, benefits and privileges they have no legal right to. I have to follow the law - why should they get an exemption?

Of course these people (and they are people, not ants or roaches) are immigrants, illegal, but they do migrate from one country to another. How does one become an illegal ailen? By illegal immigration to a country.

These people come here because they want to improve their lives and to be part of a great country. 20,000 illegals are serving in our military while we sit around and denigrate them.

It's not a "security risk" (once again, conservative America's cowardice and fearmongering shows): crime was happening before illegal immigration, drugs were still getting here before the recent increace in immigration, plus easy availabiliy of drugs is a net benefit anyway; "identify theft" is mostly perpetuated by computer hackers (the illegals aren't the ones making unauthorized credit card transactions ) or as a direct result of poor immigration policy (if we could register them without fear of deportation, there would be no need for them to use false ID). The only terrorists ever caught crossing the border were from Canada (we don't address that illegal immigration occurs on the Canadian border as well...probably because Canadians aren't brown).

Illegal immigrants are key in keeping our welfare state solvent (the millions they cost in public benifit pale in comparison to the trillions we will get in social security benefits which are automatically deducted from their wages and which they will never be able to claim).

Why is illegal immigration the only law which is sancrosanct? Plenty of people speed (threataning the lives of others), gays had sex (laws against sodomy were recently one of those laws you all hold so dear), people violate watering restrictions (threataning our environment and the health of our cities) but for some reason if somebody crosses a line on a map, that is held as a severe violation of the laws. Pure hipocracy.

Ultimately, this argument is irrelevant. America is such a great country that people will always do anything to get in (and our 200,000 cap on visas makes it very difficult to get here legally). Certain elements just want to make sure more brown people die on their way in, instead of helping those less fortunate than us.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not prepared to give any companies a break. If there was no market for illegal labor, there would be no incentive for these folks to sneak in to the US. They also benefit, unfairly, by taking advantage of illegals. In my view, they are the most culpable for this mess.

So you favor the destruction of small businesses so large corporations can take over?
The employers the article investigated had people who had at least some idea of how to identify forged documents -- they tried, and they failed. In no case that U.S. News checked into did the immigration authorities even bother to check those documents... but when U.S. News had people look at them, the "experts" they got had trouble telling that many of the documents were forgeries!
So are you saying we should penalize people for not being magically endowed with the ability to discern forgeries that even experts can't be sure of?

I agree when it's a matter of knowingly hiring illegals -- but the government has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. And for small, family-owned business, I don't think it's really worth the bother; just have agents in the field look at the documents, and if they aren't obvious fakes, let the owners go.

Walls are a horrible idea. For 1 reason, they don't work. Ask Genghis Kahn (who got over the Great Wall), ask East Germany, ask the Protestants in Northern Ireland. This "great" country, based on freedom and immigration, building huge walls to keep people out because we're cowards. America is great, and people will come to our shores. What does it say of our people, when we refuse to extend the Blessings of Liberty on all who come because "they've broken the law" (so have speeders and homo-sexuals) or they speak an odd language (like the Irish, Germans and Chinese before them). Cowards.

Actually East Germany's wall worked fairly well; very, very few got past it. I'll grant that it had the virtue of being relatively short and heavily manned, but it does show that with those conditions, a wall can be effective.
I object to the generalization of "cowards". I personally think our immigration laws are ridiculously strict, and should be reformed in favor of letting in maybe twice as many as we do -- and if a quota from some specific country isn't filled, let someone on a waiting list in. I'm not afraid of immigrants coming here; my objection is the same as if people broke into my mom's house and set up house in her living room -- it isn't theirs, and they don't belong there (and if they asked nicely and were decent people, she just might rent them a room anyway).

See below for further comment--

Legal immigrant workers must be able to be identified by the employer. I don't know of any other way to do that other than ID Cards and that means we may all need ID cards (which the right wing will also oppose), a National ID system is long overdue.

This is hilarious!
The strongest objections to ID cards hardly come from the "right wing"... they tend to come from such good old conservative outfits as the ACLU....
Besides which -- in the cases of the companies U.S. News investigated, all the immigrants working there had documents which passed inspection -- legal and illegal. Whatever gets required, someone will forge.
For those who want to be able to prove they are citizens of their home states, there ought to be a way to do it through the private sector. I would have no qualms at all about giving a DNA sample, etc. etc., to a private company who could use it to demonstrate to anyone interested that I am the guy my birth certificate says I am -- but no government should have such power.

Besides, I've heard Lou Dobbs talk about how the U.S. already has 20 guest worker programs for people who want to work here temporarily. Why aren't these people applying for them? Too much trouble? Easier to break, enter and steal your way in I suppose. I hate bureaucracy as well but have to follow it. It's the rule of law! Too Bad. If you want to come here, follow the law people!

Hitler had the "rule of law", too; so did Edward Longshanks and Louis XIV....

One reason that people aren't applying for them is that they don't know. I suspect that if law allowed it, companies here would happily go to Mexico and set up workshops for people who want to come here, helping them through the requirements -- if the government would allow people who had gone through those to actually come. In fact that wouldn't be a bad idea for reform: go through an employer's workshop for training in employment and understanding the basic rules in the U.S., and you get a green card -- then the employer transports you in, safely, and not some guide who doesn't care about you, risks your life, and takes more money than you'll earn your first two years anyway.

Why is illegal immigration the only law which is sancrosanct? Plenty of people speed (threataning the lives of others), gays had sex (laws against sodomy were recently one of those laws you all hold so dear), people violate watering restrictions (threataning our environment and the health of our cities) but for some reason if somebody crosses a line on a map, that is held as a severe violation of the laws. Pure hipocracy.

Ultimately, this argument is irrelevant. America is such a great country that people will always do anything to get in (and our 200,000 cap on visas makes it very difficult to get here legally). Certain elements just want to make sure more brown people die on their way in, instead of helping those less fortunate than us.

I don't think it's "the only law which is sacrosanct". I see people as not liking to have their home broken into, or their country invaded. It's a kind of "family affair" thing -- laws about behavior amongst ourselves is one matter; the law about becoming one of us is entirely different.

It's also that Mexico is encouraging them to come. I don't see how that doesn't virtually amount to an act of war, really.

 

[Kulindahr]

There is quite difference between the "left" like iman and the classical left (libertarians) like the ACLU. The latter actually believes in liberty.

I know.

I just love reminding my "evangelical" acquaintances that the reason they don't have to say an officially-approved (mainstream Christian) prayer in school every day is that the ACLU fought a long and expensive legal battle for religious freedom.

 

[Kulindahr]

When you said something about a fine levied... did you mean against the illegal immigrant or the company that hired him/her?

In the context where I wrote that, it was against the immigrant, because the matter under discussion was a company which to the best of its knowledge had hired a legal worker.
But for companies which knowingly hire illegals... well, calling it treason might be a bit much, and not many people would be happy about recognizing it as aiding and abetting the enemy, so I'd settle for a fine on the company equal to the lifetime wages or salary that would have been paid to a legal worker, and sentencing the party(ies) responsible for the hiring(s) to labor for a different company at the job they hired the illegal immigrant to do.
I can't see that an employer who knowingly hires an illegal is any different than someone who aids a criminal in breaking and entering, and the penalties should be at least as harsh.

 

[Legend500]

Actually East Germany's wall worked fairly well; very, very few got past it. I'll grant that it had the virtue of being relatively short and heavily manned, but it does show that with those conditions, a wall can be effective.
One reason that people aren't applying for them is that they don't know. I suspect that if law allowed it, companies here would happily go to Mexico and set up workshops for people who want to come here, helping them through the requirements -- if the government would allow people who had gone through those to actually come. In fact that wouldn't be a bad idea for reform: go through an employer's workshop for training in employment and understanding the basic rules in the U.S., and you get a green card -- then the employer transports you in, safely, and not some guide who doesn't care about you, risks your life, and takes more money than you'll earn your first two years anyway.
I see people as not liking to have their home broken into, or their country invaded. It's a kind of "family affair" thing -- laws about behavior amongst ourselves is one matter; the law about becoming one of us is entirely different..

I meant the Berlin Wall more in the context of a supposedly "democratic" country putting up a wall that ended up standing for division and cold-hearted-ness (trust me, the US wall would be put forward by the Mexicans as being in the same league...expect to see EU foriegn ministers and UN functionaries coming to the wall and demanding in their ever-so-effective euro-language that we should "gradually diminish the extent of the barrier to avoid getting a nasty, strongly-worded letter from the UN")

The only severe disagreement we have is over what form this immigration takes - I see it as a yearning to be free regardless of what it takes and you say that's fine - but if someone ran into your living room and took up residence on your couch unnanounced claiming to be immigrating to your home for humanitarian reasons - any reasonable person might reasonably object to that. I can see the logic in that, even if I completely disagree. Too bad most anti-immigration persons are simply refexively nativist.

Not a bad idea on the offshore job-training initiative. A good way to combat the problem.

 

[Kulindahr]

Since you sound more than willing to offer "amnesty" to those willing to work, why even bother with the fine if the company comes forward first and introduces the 'potential citizen' after a grace period (ie 90 days)?

You mean if they knowingly hire an illegal?
No.

If they want a worker from outside the country, they should go recruit there, as I suggested in another post.

 

[Kulindahr]

I meant the Berlin Wall more in the context of a supposedly "democratic" country putting up a wall that ended up standing for division and cold-hearted-ness (trust me, the US wall would be put forward by the Mexicans as being in the same league...expect to see EU foriegn ministers and UN functionaries coming to the wall and demanding in their ever-so-effective euro-language that we should "gradually diminish the extent of the barrier to avoid getting a nasty, strongly-worded letter from the UN")

The only severe disagreement we have is over what form this immigration takes - I see it as a yearning to be free regardless of what it takes and you say that's fine - but if someone ran into your living room and took up residence on your couch unnanounced claiming to be immigrating to your home for humanitarian reasons - any reasonable person might reasonably object to that. I can see the logic in that, even if I completely disagree. Too bad most anti-immigration persons are simply refexively nativist.

Not a bad idea on the offshore job-training initiative. A good way to combat the problem.

Well, the EU can go mind their own business, and the UN is a joke anyway -- so ask me if I care....

What I don't get is why Congress can't come up with ideas like training people in other countries before they come here. Yes, the training centers would be swamped, but it would make it much, much simpler all around: the workers would know where to go, they wouldn't have to gamble on a risky trip led by extorting guides; the companies could pick the best workers; the government would know exactly who should be getting the green card or whatever.

I know -- it makes sense, so why expect Congress to think of it?

Just like my suggestion that Congress define by law that the National Guard stays home except in a formally declared war....

 

[Legend500]

Legend, when lawbreakers in the US are caught, they get punished. When laws are bad, they get overturned.

Legend, if you think the immigration laws are wrong, change the laws, don't break them. If you are ever a victim of crime, you'll learn to appreciate the concept of law enforcement!

My point is that the laws against immigration are irrelevant just as the laws against speeding or sodomy. If they are easily ignored and unenforceable, it is hard to take them seriously. I don't think of those laws as "wrong" so much as irrelevant.

My question is simple - when one says "when lawbreakers in the US are caught, they get punished" why does that only include the laws against brown people (immigration, por ejemplo) and not laws that actually protect people (speeding) or laws we personally disagree with (sodomy). Did you, johan support the arrests of gays for sodomy because, at that time it was the law?

I'm in a profession that will give me an opportunity to change the law. But it also makes very clear that all this "the evildoers broke the law and thus must pay" absolutism is just base ignorance and an exuse not to ask the really hard questions. But johan and other law and order gays here present, why are all of you so black or white about this one issue? Call it fear, cowardice, racism, nativism or plain ignorance, it's unbecoming.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree with you this time, Jack.

A law unenforced is no longer a law.

Has anybody heard of the "broken-window" theory?

To summarize, once societies start ignoring one law, there comes a mindset that more and more laws are ignored, leading to a crime-ridden society.

If you guys think the immigration laws are wrong, change the goddamn laws, don't break them!

Abraham Lincoln actually warned about this. But he started with a warning against multiplying laws to great numbers, because once there are so many that people can't keep track, they stop caring, and just do as they please. It becomes impossible to enforce everything, and that breeds disrespect for all laws.
It continues to amuse me that in the Old Testament, God got all His laws in just several dozen pages, but we can't even get the tax code that simple!

Of course the broken window theory is already in action, thanks to the multiplication of laws, and the stupidity of some laws. Most people know that the laws against hemp are just inane, and those against marijuana have no rational basis... then there's zoning, and all sorts of other petty things enshrined in regulations that make it virtually impossible to not violate some rule or another -- as I noted in another thread, technically skipping rocks on a river in federal lands, whether a National Park or National Forest, is illegal.

So people focus on laws they'd like to see enforced... but Congress won't even respond to that, which just encourages us to accelerate down the road to a lawless society.