Friday, October 24, 2008

Immigration

akdoxey asked that we talk about something new: Immigration. I thought it was a worthy request.

Neither candidate has focused much on immigration, probably because it has the potential to be such a polarizing issue and perhaps because there's not much difference in their positions on the issue. I took a look at the candidates websites to see what they say.

Obama admits that our immigration system is broken. His website outlines the following components of a plan to fix it:
  • Create secure borders through additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology.
  • Fix the dysfunctional immigration system, while helping ensure that families are kept together.
  • Remove incentives to enter illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented workers.
  • Allow undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
  • Work with Mexico to promote economic development there, to address a major underlying cause of illegal immigration.

McCain also admits that our immigration system is broken. His website outlines the following plan:
  • Secure our border through "physical and virtual barriers". Ensure that funding is adequate. Implementing software and infrastructure.
  • Prosecute "bad actor" employers and implement an "electronic employment verification system."
  • Implement temporary worker programs to meet our labor needs, including specific plans for highly-skilled workers, low-skilled non-agriculture workers, and low-skilled agriculture workers.
  • Require undocumented workers to enroll in a program to resolve their status. Identify and deport criminal aliens.
  • Eliminate the family backlog.

Although the candidates' websites use different terms to describe their respective plans, the plans themselves are remarkably similar.

The Economist's special section on the election, to which I have referred in previous posts, includes an article on immigration that goes beyond the candidates' plans and looks at their records. Here are a few excerpts from the article:

Like many politicians with roots in troubled cities, Mr Obama is much less keen on increasing the number of guest workers... He backed a measure cutting the number of guest workers from 400,000 to 200,000. He introduced another measure that would have banned companies from employing guest workers in areas of high unemployment and required them to pay prevailing wages.

Until recently Mr McCain’s record on immigration was so liberal that the National Council of La Raza has twice given him an award for his political work. He has long fought for “comprehensive” immigration reform—code for any change that would provide a route to citizenship for illegals... When Mr McCain talks about the issue these days he sounds chastened. The failure of immigration reform taught him a lesson, he says—that Americans will tolerate a move to legalise illegal immigrants only if they are assured the border has been fixed.

The phrase "until recently" about McCain's record reflects the belief that his position on immigration seems to have changed. For example, he admitted that if his own immigration proposal came to a vote in the Senate, he wouldn't vote for it.

7 comments:

akdoxey said...

Both candidates don't seem to be too concerned about this, and like Alex said, it could be because this has the potential to be a polarizing topic. Being from AZ, we have had major problems in education, economy, crime, and much more due to illegals, so I may draw kind of a harsh line on this but it hits home at a personal level for me.

I feel that our economy suffers (not the recent Wall Street crashes) because we have so many illegals earning and not putting back into our system. Sometimes, I feel like there should be an amnesty period. If they're here, why not put their mark on the map. This amnesty period wouldn't grant immediate citizenship but will be a trial AND they will have to pay a higher tax percentage (sounds harsh but look at how harsh many other countries are towards illegals).

Recent politicians who have used racial profiling have gotten in trouble but (esp in AZ where I'm from) I think it's a good idea AFTER this amnesty period was over. It would be a warning to those who are committing crimes. If they don't turn themselves in, they there must be a reason.

Our country makes it too easy for illegals to live comfortably here. Why do we allow businesses to be run in completely different languages? I know I sound like a radical but after living in AZ and NYC, I'm sick of going to certain areas and feeling lost, scared, and confused. Not just because I don't feel safe but because I can't even understand what people are saying! If you come to this country...LEARN THE LANGUAGE!!!!! I have traveled a lot and there are few countries, if any, that would tolerate me getting away with not speaking that native language. Why do we tolerate it? I don't believe that is the definition of land of the free or the American Dream.

With this said, I love having different cultures here, I'm not against that. But American isn't the melting pot it's supposed to be, it's more of a tossed salad.

So, the problem with an amnesty period is what do you do in the future. Would this promote more people coming thinking it would happen again? How tightly do you secure the borders after this is done? (sigh) I wish there were an easy solution.

Jed Eastman said...

I'm pretty uneducated on the whole immigration issue. Tell me more about this amnesty idea. What would that entail?

akdoxey said...

I don't really know, it's just something I've thought about. But the way I see it is, these people are here weather we like it or not. Since we've had problems with tax and crime relating to illegals, we may as well put them on the map.

I would say they have 'x' amount of time to "turn themselves in" and then they have 'x' amount of time to prove they are willing to act as a citizen of the USA. That would include pay taxes, start learning the language, get a job if able, perhaps even some community service, show proof of how long they've been here, how, who the connections were that got them here, I don't know. I think by making them do these things, then they will take more pride in their citizenship. Then once they've proven themselves, they are granted citizenship.

I think by giving fair warning, then racial profiling is acceptable and those who are still illegals should serve time here first followed by immediate deportation.

I am totally open to reasons this wouldn't work. I just wanted to open up a conversation, this has been the best solution I've thought of.

Jed Eastman said...

I like your idea Amber. I'm mostly just thinking out loud here, but I think the biggest problem with illegals is that they get to earn a living here without paying taxes like the rest of us. I think your amnesty period would allow us to separate those people who want to contribute from those who are mooching. I think the key would be to design the amnesty period in such a way that illegals weren't worried that if they turn themselves in they'll get in trouble, deported, or separated from their families. I like your idea of making them paying taxes during their "probationary period," not sure about the higher rate, but I'm not super opposed to it either.

Again, just thinking out loud, but one problem I see here is that, if we make them pay taxes, that also means their employer will have to put them on the payroll, which also means paying them minimum wage. That could mean that the people who play by the rules lose their job and a "black market" for true illegals develops. What do you think? I think part of the reason why this problem is so tough is you have the illegals who don't want to "get in line" but also the employers who like the cheap labor. Am I wrong?

About the racial profiling. I'm not sure. I read a story in this book I'm reading about an Indonesian kid who got arrested, detained and eventually deported after 9/11 and the Patriot Act. The kid was married to an American and was working and doing a lot of good things. I don't think it's fair to just deport him, especially since he turned himself in to the immigration officials in an effort to play by the rules. I don't know, I just think we could come up with a better way to solve the problem without resorting to racial profiling.

Lastly, I'm wondering if Amber (or anyone else) would mind sharing some personal experiences they've had that show how much of a problem this is. Like I said, this is one of those issues that I'm not too familiar with so I'd like to get a better sense of why it's really a problem.

akdoxey said...

Being from AZ and knowing personally people who do not "higher" illegals and people that do, I also draw a hard line because those who are honest in their business and pay min wage suffer due to the lower bids (I'm talking specifically about manual labor jobs) from the companies who can afford lower bids because they get more work and pay illegals less. Does that make sense, it seemed jumbled. Basically, I think if we really want to solve the problem, we need to crack down on companies because they are making it so easy for illegals to be here.

As far as racial profiling, I know there's a middle line somewhere. The story you shared is sad an unfortunate, I just know when Gulliani did the "racial profiling" it helped NYC a lot. For him it was more like, making certain things illegal and then checking the background. He started with window washing and found a lot of criminals that way.

I have to run but will gladly share some experiences...to be continued.

Alex said...

I just want to correct what I think is a misconception: that illegal immigrants don't pay any taxes.

Yes, many illegal immigrants are paid "under the table", so payroll taxes aren't deducted from their wages. But many illegal immigrants use fake SSNs to pass as legal workers, and payroll taxes are deducted from their wages. But practically all illegal immigrants pay sales taxes.

It is true that on average illegal immigrants don't pay as much taxes as they would if they were legal. But it's not true that they don't pay any tax.

Here are a few links to reports about this topic, which I found from a quick Google search:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965.html

akdoxey said...

I know about the fake SSN's, I was a victim and had to switch mine. I don't care that some pay sales tax. Employers need to account for them and they need to pay real taxes. Fake SSN's or whatever should be even higher penalty for them, in our country it's called identity theft or fraud, it shouldn't be something we look at and say "oh but SOME of them pay taxes" and if you're familiar with how NYC works, a lot of them don't pay sales taxes. There are so many places that don't charge tax if you pay cash- ridiculous if you ask me.