Pelosi Calls for Stop to Raids on Illegal Immigrants

[Pangloss]

Unsurprisingly, only covered by Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/pelosi-tells-illegal-immigrants-work-site-raids-american/

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told a group of both legal and illegal immigrants and their families that enforcement of existing immigration laws, as currently practiced, is "un-American."

 

The congressman is collecting petitions that ask President Obama to "stop the immigration raids and deportations that are tearing our marriages, families and children apart." He is expected to present those petitions when Hispanic members of Congress meet with the President Wednesday.

 

This is a bunch of rabble-rousing, demagoguery, and it should stop. Illegal is illegal, and there is no difference between explicitly allowing people to enter the country illegally and imprisoning American citizens without due process or spying on their telephone conversations.

 

The law is the law, and the law must be enforced, or it should be changed. Period.

 

What do you all think?

[ParanoiA]

I agree with you 100%. The reason the families are torn up is because they didn't migrate legally, and that takes place BEFORE law gets enforced. You have to BREAK a law in order to be punished by it.

 

Likewise, all of those murderers are in jail because they committed murder, not because we unfairly enforced homicide laws.

 

(...but please conveniently forget this line of reasoning when I'm fighting for jailed potheads..thanks...)

 

Immigration laws are needed and important.

[Dudde]

I think I'm in agreement with that - it's not necessarily the nicest way to enforce the immigration laws, but if they would be nice and go through legal channels to become citizens, I'm sure we'd lighten up.

 

I actually know a lot of people who've immigrated to this country and are very, *ticked off* shall we say, at people just bolting the border. I don't think it's a good idea to stop enforcing the law

Edited March 19, 2009 by Dudde
crappy punctuation

[padren]

I would say if their arrests were not consistent with the way an arrest of a citizen would be, such as ignoring rights because they are not citizens - then I could say there's some modicum of truth in her argument. However, I don't think that's what she's saying.

 

The other argument is that we abuse illegal immigrants by turning a blind eye to businesses make money by exploiting them (low wages, working conditions, etc) and then use the law enforcement wing to kick them back over the border so a fresh batch that don't know any better can take their place. While I think it's worth keeping an eye out to make sure this doesn't happen, I can't say I buy that it is either.

 

I could see saying the focus may be less than even handed (maybe some are busting illegals as if they were crack dealers, while slapping the companies that hire them on the wrists) but really I can't give Pelosi any sort of a pass for those comments.

 

If the law needs to be changed, it should be changed... but for her to take this tact is pretty dumb imo. Of course, I don't think I know a single liberal that doesn't consider Pelosi anything more than an embarrassment and basically one of those characters you'd wish would just shut up and stop acting like she speaks for anyone but a handful of wingnuts.

[DrDNA]

Try sneaking into Mexico from their Southern border.

[ParanoiA]

I still think one of the easiest ways to deal with this, is to stand up for second class citizens. Like Padren pointed out, we use them for cheap labor and then act all indignant when it attracts more and more and dilutes the work pool, driving wages way down - and it's all based on their illegal status.

 

Anyone who thinks they are fighting for the little guy when they argue against persecuting illegal immigrants needs to rethink the resultant implication that they stay illegal - that they keep from enjoying the rights and privilege citizens demand. It's truly sad to see that we prefer they stay illegal, stuck in that crappy job without benefits, without the protection of labor laws, and without general protection since they are unlikely to involve law enforcement when any of their rights are violated. And politicians actually stand up and pretend as if that's standing up for them. Insane.

 

Stand up for these poor people by prosecuting any and every employer that exploits illegal immigrants. Doing so should effectively end the crazy demand on their cheaper-than-legal labor, which I would hope would resolve much of the issue with illegal crossing. It's a black market. It's cruel. It needs to be shutdown.

[Dudde]

Stand up for these poor people by prosecuting any and every employer that exploits illegal immigrants. Doing so should effectively end the crazy demand on their cheaper-than-legal labor, which I would hope would resolve much of the issue with illegal crossing. It's a black market. It's cruel. It needs to be shutdown.

 

I agree with this point, well made. If we start hitting companies that are using illegal labor, we can hopefully slow the desire to run across the border so rampantly - or at least make it look better to become a citizen of the U.S. I'm happy if anybody wants to immigrate up here, just...legally...

[ParanoiA]

I'm happy if anybody wants to immigrate up here, just...legally...

 

Exactly. I used to be quite vocal about open border policy until a member here really took me to task and schooled me on why we filter citizenship, why it's necessary to restrict the flow. When that rationale is understood, it takes the edge of what appears to be ignoble.

 

If I can find that thread, I'll link it.

[JohnB]

Stand up for these poor people by prosecuting any and every employer that exploits illegal immigrants. Doing so should effectively end the crazy demand on their cheaper-than-legal labor, which I would hope would resolve much of the issue with illegal crossing. It's a black market. It's cruel. It needs to be shutdown.

I too agree with this sentiment. Employers knowingly using illegal labour are barely a step up from slavers IMO. (And it goes to show that this is not just a US problem.)

 

Emplyers in australia have been busted and prosecuted for using illegals in what can only be described as sweatshops. The only problem is that we are not coming down hard enough on those employers. Quite often a fine of $50,000 is inadequate. The employer made that much last month from exploiting the illegals. Custodial sentences should be imposed. 5 to 10 years preferably.

 

Sorry for the rant, but I hate slavers.

[ParanoiA]

No apologies necessary.

[ecoli]

Stand up for these poor people by prosecuting any and every employer that exploits illegal immigrants. Doing so should effectively end the crazy demand on their cheaper-than-legal labor, which I would hope would resolve much of the issue with illegal crossing. It's a black market. It's cruel. It needs to be shutdown.

I'm of a mind to relax immigration laws (focus only on screening incomers for national security reasons), get rid of welfare programs, and let labor markets figure out the rest.

 

The more immigrants we have, the cost of labor gets driven down which disincentives further immigration (particularly in the lack of externalities such as welfare).

 

If free trade is all about coordinating production to its strengths, surely the same logic must be true for labor markets as well.

[Dudde]

Indeed it would, but I disagree on the point that it would help more than harm. If we started driving down labor costs, it would do wonders for helping a demand for higher skilled jobs, thereby helping create more jobs at the top level (hopefully) by freeing up the necessity to keep a large amount of the workforce at unskilled positions.

 

However, a large majority of the U.S is still unskilled and in rather harsh economic circumstances, before the economy started skipping to see the wizard of oz - I think before we relax any labor laws, we need to tighten up around education to fill the skilled positions.

 

I hope nobody takes offense, in no way am I saying that immigrants are incapable of filling the higher ranks of the workforce - on the contrary in fact, my friend moved from Korea like 18 years ago and has made more money since then than I think my entire family has made over a decade

 

I just think we should better improve conditions in this country at the lowest level, before we just open up the borders and encourage low paying jobs

[Pangloss]

Paying $50/month for house cleaning is not a constitutional right. If the fact that it's only $50/month is due to the recipients being illegal and citizens can't get their costs that low even if they want to, then something is wrong with the system, and we need to change that situation, not "relax the immigration laws".

 

Tighten UP the immigration laws, prevent people from coming in illegally, and then, if you like, increase the number of LEGAL immigrants. Make them pay ALL the taxes and make THEIR service providers (housing, food, healthcare) meet the same standards as they have to meet for citizens. Then you'll see those costs go up and that will end $50/month house cleaning, and everyone's happy. I can afford to pay $100, or I can clean the damn house myself.

[padren]

Out of curiosity, are there any statistics on how many legal immigrants after becoming legal continue to work under the table? It would be harder for them to get citizenship if that is their long term goal, if they are not declaring income of course... but if they come for jobs that have illegally low pay in illegally poor conditions, they'll still be just as willing to work under those conditions after getting legal status. If they can't don't speak English well and try to get a minimum wage job in a market competing against native English speaking applicants - do many of them get frustrated and go back to the same sweatshops that don't care they are legal?

 

If working under the table at illegally low wages is their main competitively attractive attribute to employers I don't see how they (not all of course, but those in that category) would still get minimum wage work and not resort to what made them desirable in the first place.

[Sisyphus]

Maybe, but I think being legal, even if they don't speak English well, is still a marketable attribute. Namely, it makes them attractive to businesses that don't want to run illegally. Increasing the legal unskilled labor pool would likely lower the wages of those jobs, but not below minimum wage, and still under better conditions than illegals are typically employed under. It would also make them harder to exploit even in those sub-minimum wage situations, since they wouldn't be relying on their employer for protection from the law (in fact it would be the other way around).

[ecoli]

Paying $50/month for house cleaning is not a constitutional right. If the fact that it's only $50/month is due to the recipients being illegal and citizens can't get their costs that low even if they want to, then something is wrong with the system, and we need to change that situation, not "relax the immigration laws".

 

Tighten UP the immigration laws, prevent people from coming in illegally, and then, if you like, increase the number of LEGAL immigrants. Make them pay ALL the taxes and make THEIR service providers (housing, food, healthcare) meet the same standards as they have to meet for citizens. Then you'll see those costs go up and that will end $50/month house cleaning, and everyone's happy. I can afford to pay $100, or I can clean the damn house myself.

I'm saying change all the laws so that illegal immigration is (virtually) impossible and unimportant, because legal immigration is a lot easier - anyone is free to come and go as they please, just as if you were moving between states.

 

You haven't made the case that paying $50/month has anything to do with the legal status. If an immigrant (legal or otherwise) can survive on $50/month (per house) then homeowners benefit from that. If I can save $50 a month, maybe I'll by an extra video game, or put the money in the bank, where it can contribute to the economy in other places.

 

What about the person who can only survive on $100/month? They can work at my video game store (or whereever).

 

This is what I'm talking about: labor can flow to where its needed. If you have an overabundance of labor, jobs that require labor will become less costly, and labor realizes it makes make more money somewhere else. (if something is scarce and in demand, prices - or wages- will rise).

 

This is why I'm not concerned about immigration. Laws of supply and demand can dictate what goods should be produced and where it gets sent for consumption. The same logic applied to labor markets.

 

This type of free trade benefits consumers, and people, because it allows everyone to play to their strengths. That's good for an economy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

However, a large majority of the U.S is still unskilled and in rather harsh economic circumstances, before the economy started skipping to see the wizard of oz - I think before we relax any labor laws, we need to tighten up around education to fill the skilled positions.

I don't understand your logic here. You agree that driving down the costs for unskilled labor will produce opportunities for skilled jobs, but fail to see how the market could create educational opportunities to supply the market with (now) skilled workers?

 

Hell, if I'm a company that wants to add to my skilled job workforce, and knows there's profit in it - I'd pay for my employees education myself.

 

Lots of companies already do this and lots of schools that could be cutting costs if they're competing for the same market.

[Pangloss]

I'm saying change all the laws so that illegal immigration is (virtually) impossible and unimportant, because legal immigration is a lot easier - anyone is free to come and go as they please, just as if you were moving between states.

 

There's a reason why we don't do that that has nothing to do with cheap labor. It would produce growth that would be too rapid to integrate the new population into housing, labor, and tax revenue. Europe knows all about this problem which is why most (all?) European nations tightly control the number of people allowed to immigrate each year.

 

 

You haven't made the case that paying $50/month has anything to do with the legal status. If an immigrant (legal or otherwise) can survive on $50/month (per house) then homeowners benefit from that. If I can save $50 a month, maybe I'll by an extra video game, or put the money in the bank, where it can contribute to the economy in other places.

 

I meant the payer, not the recipient. They go and work other houses and make more money -- they're not living off $50/month. But my point is that they don't have the same expenses as legal citizens. They do pay some taxes, but not all of them, if they're being paid "off the books", in cash, and if they're paying their room and board the same way, then they're not participating in the economy and their expenses are artificially low.

 

And people take advantage of them on that basis, knowing they can't complain, and saving even more money in the process.

 

This is intuitively obvious and frequently demonstrated in reporting and common experience.

[Dudde]

I don't understand your logic here. You agree that driving down the costs for unskilled labor will produce opportunities for skilled jobs, but fail to see how the market could create educational opportunities to supply the market with (now) skilled workers?

 

Hell, if I'm a company that wants to add to my skilled job workforce, and knows there's profit in it - I'd pay for my employees education myself.

 

You have to remember that our educational standards are ridiculously low - too many people would rather quit trying because they can't find unskilled labor and then try to milk the government - which I find stupid, but happens a lot. If we can get education to increase, we can start supplying less to unskilled labor and throwing more at skilled labor, which will inevitably create new and different skilled positions, and increase demand for the lower skilled jobs.

 

I also agree with Pangloss - just because you can live off of such low earnings, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of things that are being neglected because of it. If we can stop illegal labor from being exploited so much, we might be able to bring the standard of living up a bit in the U.S - I personally am fine now, but I've lived in a lot of poor and shady neighborhoods growing up, and I don't think it's a good place for us to be expanding.

[ecoli]

You have to remember that our educational standards are ridiculously low - too many people would rather quit trying because they can't find unskilled labor and then try to milk the government - which I find stupid, but happens a lot. If we can get education to increase, we can start supplying less to unskilled labor and throwing more at skilled labor, which will inevitably create new and different skilled positions, and increase demand for the lower skilled jobs.

 

I also agree with Pangloss - just because you can live off of such low earnings, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of things that are being neglected because of it. If we can stop illegal labor from being exploited so much, we might be able to bring the standard of living up a bit in the U.S - I personally am fine now, but I've lived in a lot of poor and shady neighborhoods growing up, and I don't think it's a good place for us to be expanding.

 

I'm a little confused by your pronoun usage. Who is "we" and "our" in this scenario?