Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is an issue that seems to constantly trip up politicians at the federal level, on both sides of the aisle. The hispanic vote is becoming increasingly critical, and a lot of businesses simply can't function without illegal aliens, yet there's clearly a security issue raised by failing to protect our borders. President Bush, among many others, seems not to want to wade into this one at all either.

I fear we may be past the ability to stop it now that the hispanic vote represents a larger portion than the black vote.

Politicians fearing their jobs are at stake will pander to illegal immigration issues while selling the security of the country short.

I wonder about that. After all, hispanics who vote are LEGAL immigrants. I would imagine they are almost less in favor of illegal immigration than most of us, especially since many hispanic-Americans hold jobs most under threat from illegal immigrants. As much as people here bitch about it, illegal immigrants probably aren't a threat to OUR jobs.

So that leaves the question of why politics don't want to touch the issue. Personally, I think it's a racial thing. It's easy to be anti-illegal immigrant and come off sounding like you hate Mexicans. The fact that some nutcase groups are big voices behind anti-illegal immigration policies probably doesn't help.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DonVito
This is an issue that seems to constantly trip up politicians at the federal level, on both sides of the aisle. The hispanic vote is becoming increasingly critical, and a lot of businesses simply can't function without illegal aliens, yet there's clearly a security issue raised by failing to protect our borders. President Bush, among many others, seems not to want to wade into this one at all either.

I fear we may be past the ability to stop it now that the hispanic vote represents a larger portion than the black vote.

Politicians fearing their jobs are at stake will pander to illegal immigration issues while selling the security of the country short.

I wonder about that. After all, hispanics who vote are LEGAL immigrants. I would imagine they are almost less in favor of illegal immigration than most of us, especially since many hispanic-Americans hold jobs most under threat from illegal immigrants. As much as people here bitch about it, illegal immigrants probably aren't a threat to OUR jobs.

So that leaves the question of why politics don't want to touch the issue. Personally, I think it's a racial thing. It's easy to be anti-illegal immigrant and come off sounding like you hate Mexicans. The fact that some nutcase groups are big voices behind anti-illegal immigration policies probably doesn't help.

or it could be a Big business thing in which they would lose a lot of campaign dollars. Or it could be both your point and $$$$$$$$. The fact is the world is getting smaller and smaller everyday when it comes to the world economy. So either you find ways to deal with overseas cheap labor, ie...ship jobs over seas or allow cheap labor to migrate into your country. Either way you must adapt or die.

 

[Kendral77]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Legend
We should give citizenship to those already here, and then severely punish any company that hires illegals.

So how much do you expect this administration to punish Walmart?

I'm sorry, I'm not a big fan of walmart in general (rotten customer service), but I do know first hand that they do not hire illegals. Their keep all of the records for all of their employees.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Clintons a moron plain and simple!!

 

[ericlp]

They are all a bunch a f'en morons. We really need to get rid of this two party system.

 

[maddogchen]

I don't understand. Why do we need to make it a felony? Are you gonna put them in our overcrowded jails? Just deport them!
Am I missing something here?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: DonVito
a lot of businesses simply can't function without illegal aliens

That's just crap - a lot of businesses simply don't want to function without the option of being able to hire illegals at criminally-low wages, but they'd still survive. Robert Samualson had a column discussing this and the immigration problem generally in the Wednesday Wash. Post (and several other national publications). It's available online if anyone cares to find it.

Allow me to clarify - they can't operate at a profit without drastically increasing prices to consumers. Essentially the prices of the entire California produce industry are predicated on using illegal aliens to pick many of the crops. Their revenue structure is based on paying the pickers less than minimum wage (and try finding that many Americans or legal aliens to pick crops even at minimum wage). I'm not defending the practice, but it's an integral part of our entire country's economy.

From the Samualson column cited above (link - registration might be required):

"Economist Philip Martin of the University of California likes to tell a story about the state's tomato industry. In the early 1960s, growers relied on seasonal Mexican laborers, brought in under the government's "bracero" program. The Mexicans picked the tomatoes that were then processed into ketchup and other products. In 1964 Congress killed the program despite growers' warnings that its abolition would doom their industry. What happened? Well, plant scientists developed oblong tomatoes that could be harvested by machine. Since then, California's tomato output has risen fivefold."

The rest of the column's a good read as well. All this talk about how illegals are an "integral part of our nation's economy" and loss of their labor would result in "drastic" price increases is a smoke screen. Industry would adapt, and the impact on prices would barely be noticed. On the other hand, a significant burden would be lifted from our society if we finally clamped-down on illegals; as Samualson noted, the number of Hispanics living below the poverty line increased 162% since 1980, many, many times the growth of poor whites and blacks (up 3% and 9%, respectively). Illegals are clearly a net drain on the economy as a whole, and agri-business would survive just fine without the ability to exploit illegals at $1/hour or whatever they're paid.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Kendral77

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Legend
We should give citizenship to those already here, and then severely punish any company that hires illegals.

So how much do you expect this administration to punish Walmart?

I'm sorry, I'm not a big fan of walmart in general (rotten customer service), but I do know first hand that they do not hire illegals. Their keep all of the records for all of their employees.

All of their employees, perhaps. There's an easy fix to that though:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2003/10/25/2003073344

WalMart is pretty much rotten to the core. They'll do anything to cut costs. I hate it when people say it's a prime example of an "American" company. Though maybe there is some merit to that statement.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

NEW YORK -- Invoking Biblical themes, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton joined immigration advocates Wednesday to vow and block legislation seeking to criminalize undocumented immigrants.

So, the Democrats are in favor of global labor wage arbitrage and the destruction of the American middle class and the further impoverishment of the lower classes? I've seen saying it for some time; she's an altruist and an open-borders advocate.

The Democrats would be insane to make her the candidate now. Heck, if they do, I might just have to hold my nose and vote Republican.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
I totally disagree with Clinton on this. I'm all for building a wall, mass deportations, fining employers of illegals, etc.

However, one has to note that Clinton's position is basically the same as John "Open Borders and Amnesty" McCain and George W. "Its not an amnesty, really!!!" Bush.

It's time for a new "Americans First" political party since both of the mainstream parties are treasonous.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I fear we may be past the ability to stop it now that the hispanic vote represents a larger portion than the black vote.

Politicians fearing their jobs are at stake will pander to illegal immigration issues while selling the security of the country short.

I'm not convinced that the legal Hispanic immigrants are necessarily fans of illegal immigration. After all, they have to worry about their own wages, too.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
So that leaves the question of why politics don't want to touch the issue. Personally, I think it's a racial thing. It's easy to be anti-illegal immigrant and come off sounding like you hate Mexicans. The fact that some nutcase groups are big voices behind anti-illegal immigration policies probably doesn't help.

It's clearly a 'racial thing'. When then-Gov. Pete Wilson proposed Proposition 187 (denying state benefits to illegals) in Cal., the race card was pulled out, played, and beaten to death. Likewise, I've seen the racist label thrown at groups like the Minutemen countless times - check out this online chat transcript from a Washington Post article about the conflict between day laborers and Minutemen in Herndon, VA. Look how many times labels like 'racist' and 'bigot' are thrown out. As long as some on the left continue to poison the debate like this, no solution to the illegal immigration issue will ever be possible.

 

[conjur]

Wonder if Dion would consider a remake of his The Wanderer for Hillary and call it The Panderer?

 

[moshquerade]

shhhhhh.... quiet everybody..... let's not protest too much. we want her to run in 2008.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
No, the problem is one of economics. Who do you think is working in Walmart and hauling heavy boxes for slave wages?

If you export illegal immigrants you export a large base of our economy. I thought this was common knowledge.

Alternatively, it could result in higher wages for Americans who could perform those same jobs. At the same time, Americans would enjoy lower education costs (it costs more to educate the children of illegals than what they contribute in tax dollars), lower health care costs, lower criminal justice costs, possibly lower crime, and lower population/resources costs. The alleged lower labor costs are a myth because other costs are passed on to the rest of our society in the form of various externalities.

When you have tens of millions of poor people in your country, the solution is not to import millions of poor people, but rather to try to employ the ones you already have.

A society cannot consume more than it produces. The real issue is whether we'll have a society will tens of millions of impoverished slaves who support the upper classes or whether we'll structure our economy so that the forces of supply and demand distribute the wealth produced more equitably.

Supply of labor and demand for labor (relative to a static amount of capital) dictate that the result of instantaneously merging our labor market with the billions of impoverished people in the third world would be the destruction of the middle and lower-middle classes and widespread third world poverty in America. Why my fellow college-educated Americans have failed to understand that very simple economic concept is beyond me. Whether it is because they are optimistic altruists or because they have a religious-like dogmatic faith in what they improperly label free market economics, I do not know.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

More from the Samuelson op-ed:

Guest workers would mainly legalize today's vast inflows of illegal immigrants, with the same consequence: We'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking; many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate; many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished.

Note that not only is it the importation of poverty, but also an increase in population and thus an increase in population costs, such as the costs of real estate, resources, and environmental costs.

 

[piasabird]

So if you are for illigal immigrants, then are you trying to say you favor creating a lower class of workers because you want to exploit poor people so you can live comfortably in your ivory tower?

Lets just lay it on the line and tell the real truth.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

More from the Samuelson op-ed:

Guest workers would mainly legalize today's vast inflows of illegal immigrants, with the same consequence: We'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking; many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate; many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished.

Note that not only is it the importation of poverty, but also an increase in population and thus an increase in population costs, such as the costs of real estate, resources, and environmental costs.

You're just a racist . . . and a bigot . . . and a racist bigot!! Hate is not a family value!!
(Sarcasm! Sarcasm!)

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if you are for illigal immigrants, then are you trying to say you favor creating a lower class of workers because you want to exploit poor people so you can live comfortably in your ivory tower?

Lets just lay it on the line and tell the real truth.

Hey, somebody's got to cut Hilary's lawn . . . have you seen the size of that place she's got in NY, and it's not like Bill's home enough to do it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Aisengard
No, the problem is one of economics. Who do you think is working in Walmart and hauling heavy boxes for slave wages?

If you export illegal immigrants you export a large base of our economy. I thought this was common knowledge.

Alternatively, it could result in higher wages for Americans who could perform those same jobs. At the same time, Americans would enjoy lower education costs (it costs more to educate the children of illegals than what they contribute in tax dollars), lower health care costs, lower criminal justice costs, possibly lower crime, and lower population/resources costs. The alleged lower labor costs are a myth because other costs are passed on to the rest of our society in the form of various externalities.

When you have tens of millions of poor people in your country, the solution is not to import millions of poor people, but rather to try to employ the ones you already have.

A society cannot consume more than it produces. The real issue is whether we'll have a society will tens of millions of impoverished slaves who support the upper classes or whether we'll structure our economy so that the forces of supply and demand distribute the wealth produced more equitably.

Supply of labor and demand for labor (relative to a static amount of capital) dictate that the result of instantaneously merging our labor market with the billions of impoverished people in the third world would be the destruction of the middle and lower-middle classes and widespread third world poverty in America. Why my fellow college-educated Americans have failed to understand that very simple economic concept is beyond me. Whether it is because they are optimistic altruists or because they have a religious-like dogmatic faith in what they improperly label free market economics, I do not know.

Excellent Sir.

I don't know you but will add you to list I will interview for position along the lines of Domestic Policy.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Am I misreading the OP or does Hillary merely state that she is against making it a felony and NOT in favor of illegal immigration as a whole? I read this part:

Among other things, Clinton said she would support legislation that would strengthen U.S. borders, boost technology to secure the borders, and seek greater cross-border cooperation with Mexico and other neighboring countries.

Then I thought, what the hell is all of the complaining from the right about Hillary's stance here? It is just more fodder for the flock who don't actually take the time to read the entire story, only the talking points. She has CLEARLY STATED that she wants tougher measures inacted, just doesn't want it to be felony class offense. I will go on record as saying that I agree with her.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: HBalzer

So you guys have a problem with outsourcing jobs over seas, however you see no problem with illegals that pay no taxes and work for 2-3 bucks an hour taking American jobs in our own country?

Don?t get me wrong I have no problem with letting people into the country as long as they do it legally. I would even be for loosening restrictions on letting them in to the country legally.

What are you babbling about?

It's your Republican Heros that chocked the door open and made the business Policy causing this situation.

See there is a beauty in being independent, I can vote on things based on whether they are right or wrong not just because my party tells me so. And yes I do lean toward the Republican side simply because most of you Dems have totally gone off the deep end. However if a man like Governor Mark R. Warner the former Dem Gov. of Virginia ran for president I would probably vote for him.

I don't believe you are an independent at all.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
You're just a racist . . . and a bigot . . . and a racist bigot!! Hate is not a family value!!
(Sarcasm! Sarcasm!)

Unfortunately, our opponents' arguments aren't as blatantly silly. Rather, they make out-of-context claims about how global labor wage arbitrage helps our economy without actually making any attempts to put forth explanations or arguments that use basic economic concepts. Oftentimes they'll only consider front-end costs while conveniently (and either purposely or ignorantly) ignoring the myriad and less-visible back-end costs and externalities.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Mursilis
You're just a racist . . . and a bigot . . . and a racist bigot!! Hate is not a family value!!
(Sarcasm! Sarcasm!)

Unfortunately, our opponents' arguments aren't as blatantly silly. Rather, they make out-of-context claims about how global labor wage arbitrage helps our economy without actually making any attempts to put forth explanations or arguments that use basic economic concepts. Oftentimes they'll only consider front-end costs while conveniently (and either purposely or ignorantly) ignoring the myriad and less-visible back-end costs and externalities.

Seriously, I'm just stunned you got someone to actually address the economics issues at all; all I ever see is 'racist' chanted to death.

 

[imported_Condor]

Wasn't it her hubby that had the Democratic party set up voter education centers near the border to educate illegals in how to vote? In English, repeat after me: "I want to make my X for Senior William Jefferson Clinton". Class dismissed!