Juan_Bottom wrote:It's interesting to hear you say some of this, PLAYER.
How do you feel about the Mexican-American border being statistically more dangerous than the Israeli border (6,000 dead in 30 months?)? Do you think that our (FEDERAL) government is purposefully ignoring this problem(the crime I mean)?
I believe it is both and example of come our most shameful, ill-conceived actions, combined with a good measure of hypocrisy.
#1 in the hypocrisy is that the reason they keep coming and the reason the borders have not been REALLY sealed is not lack of a wall, but the fact that so many employers want illegal workers, for the reasons I gave above. YET, when the hue and cry goes out, it is almost entirely worded as an "illegal alien" and "illegal criminal" problem, not an "employers who hire illegally" problem.
I cannot say Reagan started it, but for all his "tough on crime" stances, in practice, he did very little to stem any illegal flow. Many say his policies subtly incouraged it.
Juan_Bottom wrote:Also, don't you believe that allowing illegals to settle here(or amnesty, whichever or whatever you ment) can only lower the wages that everyone makes? This doesn't seem fair to me. And it isn't a comprimise that I would choose to make.
No, the employer would never pay less than the minimum wage.
I DID forgot to say, though that I actually think there should be a slight surcharge employers should pay to hire immigrants. In the lowest wage brackets, that might be $0.25 more an hour. For higher wage brackets, perhaps 5-10% of the base wage should be a tax. In skilled labor, I believe there should be additional requirements. AND, the law already says that you have to hire a citizen over a non-citizen BUT there are many, many ways to get around that (ever notice the ads for a Tagalog speaking accountant in the LA times?).
The immigrants would get slightly less.. up until the time they were in a full citizenship track, if not actually a citizen. The specifics would have to be defined. In general, I would say extablishing a home here, keeping a job, attending English classes (if not already fluent), various citizenship classes, etc. BUT the employer would be paying slightly more. This would place an economic disinsentive on hiring immigrants. A legitimate disincentive. BUT, it would not be such a great burden as to make it completely impractical to hire immigrants. Employers would hire immigrants when that immigrant will do better work or when the employer plain cannot get a citizen. All, I believe, reasonable market-driving reasons.
Further,
another ommission on my part. I believe there should be a
special provision for agricultural and some other seasonal workers, as well as for nannies. Farmers are pretty close to the nubbin. I DON'T think they should be forced to follow the regular minimum wage. BUT, in exchange for this reduction, they should be required to provide reasonable, safe, housing. The housing can be smaller than a typical US house, definitely, but should have sanitary facilities, be insulated, have air conditioning and heat (air cond. is NOT a luxury when it is 110 degrees out -- but low tech swamp coolers work well in the desert). In some cases, particularly where the employees are migrants, a community kitchen would be OK (works for government parks employees ... why not farm laborers?). The ability to keep some produce would also be in line ... usually culls and ground lay is basically wasted (other than what the thrifty farmers save themselves) but really are just fine to eat (I grew up on the stuff ... )
Nannies, often are already provided housing and board as a part of their wage.
I would even add a provision restricting some welfare benefits to able-bodied citizens. If farmers are required to provide reasonable housing, then there is no reason why some of those urban folks can't come out. Because these folks (let's be honest), these citizens are typically not the most hard working and able of folks, the farmer might need incentives (tax break, etc.). Also, they should only have to take 1-2 "welfare" workers or families each. It will be legitimate opportunity for those who are honest, hard-working folks. I would even add a provision that these folks would be allowed to stay year-round in the housing on the farm. (perhaps the with compensation for the farmer ... perhaps they might be asked to do some work in exchange, but the farmer would be subsidized in a kind of "job program") The kids would be able to stay in one school. Also, because there would not be too many, communities can more readily absorb these folks. This would have a lot of complications, but I think it could work IF done properly.
Juan_Bottom wrote:And I don't see how taxing a single body of residence is do-able. Especially on lower to middle class income. Let alone, socially isolateing/outcasting a group of people.
Let's be clear. Being a citizen does mean something ...or should. I am all for immigration of law-abiding folks who can find and keep jobs ... who are needed. BUT, there does have to be a limit. Law-abiding is certainly top. Ability to work (other than kids, disabled and elderly family members who will be supported by their families, barring tragic deaths and such ... that such a rare occurance supporting those few won't make a huge burdern upon us) probably a close second. Refugees obviously deserve special status and provisions and accomodations.
The problem now is not the limits, per se. It is that the limits that exist do not match work demands.
.
Plenty of people do want to come here to stay, to become citizens. BUT, many more would just as soon work for a while and then head back to their home country, particularly if that country has a good social welfare system or if they have close family "back home". Immigration laws tend to see these folks as a kind of threat. Instead, we should see them as contributors to our society while here, and good-will ambassodors when they go home.
Instead of 1 program, we need several.
In farming, the need is often for temporary, seasonal workers who often would just as soon head home IF they can be sure of both a safe return and re-entry.
In other positions, the need might be for more steady employees who might stay a year or two for lower skilled positions, to several years for more highly skilled positions
Finally, another group would be sort of the reverse. These are folks who already who might be retired or who otherwise are self-supporting from their home country. But, for any number of reasons ... maybe marrying a legal resident here (even a citizen), maybe just the desire for a different climate or ??? , who want to come, stay for extended periods, but then go "back". They have no intention of becoming a citizen. Maybe just because of age, maybe the medical care in their home country is cheaper ... again, reasons vary. Right now, immigration tends to see these folks as potential threats. You are supposed to either come, once, for a visit or come and stay. Going back and forth several times is strongly discouraged.
We end up losing the income these people bring as well as the experience they offer to their communities.
Juan_Bottom wrote:When would these taxes stop(will American-born children not pay immigration taxes)?
MY BAD -- I meant the children they already have, who are not citizens. Their children born here would be citizens just like every other child. Once naturalized, the newly citizen children would similarly be no different from any other citizen child.
Right now, many families are separated when one or more parents try to come here for work. NPR did a series of stories on this. In one case, they interviewed a lady who had tracked several of these kids to find out what it was really like. It was heart wrenching and scary. It benefits no one, the home country or here, to have kids separated from their parents. The primary objection to having them here is the burden on schools. This is why I said we just need to change our thinking. Instead of seeing these kids as taking services and competing with citizen kids, we need to see them as future ambassadors and potential future citizens. [/quote]
Finally, I probably should clarify on the extra tax part. The cost of schooling the children of illegal immigrants AND providing medical care for these kids is a burden on many small communties and upon all states. They are real, legitimate costs. It is not right that taxpayers should be heavily burdened to pay for these kids. BUT, at the same time, public schools are not private schools. We have free education because it really and truly benefits society as a whole to have children educated. The taxes I propose, combined with insurance requirements, will help these communities without turning the public schools into privatized entities. Those immigrants who are wealthy will be taxed more ... just like US citizens.
Are these "prefect" solutions? No. In fact, I am not sure any of them would ever be implemented for a lot of political and other reasons, practical or no. Still, it is what I would like to see. It is my answer to "okay, you offered criticism, what is your solution?"
