|
Post by gailkate on Jun 29, 2007 11:09:14 GMT -5
I'm convinced of that, too, RMN. I don't know what it looks like, but I know sometimes I "get through." I think we've covered most of our objections to this bill, as well as hopes on some people's part for at least a move in a positive direction. I checked Tom Harkin's web site and found this harkin.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=278062He may be one of our most liberal senators, but he voted no for some good reasons. I'm going to continue perusing sites from all manner of people. I think the inconsistencies in reasoning reveal that for some this is a distinctly racial issue. If we need these workers for jobs no one here will accept, why then did the bill propose new standards for skills - something which, presumabley, would definitely affect competition for jobs? I think it's because many object to ignorant wetbacks , whether they'll admit it or not. Harkin noted that his mother came here with $17 to marry a man from her village. Many of us are just a couple of generations from farm families who couldn't have offered education or special proficiency, just high hopes and hard work. Moreover, giving some preference to family members seems to me a good way to build solid commuities. (Of course, drug dealers' moms might not be an asset.) Our paper reported that 40% of the illegals in this country have overstayed legal visas. That puts a different light on some of the implications that all these people are brazen lawbreakers. And Harkin noted that companies are profiting from cheap labor. we need to send a strong message to employers that they will be held accountable for hiring undocumented workers and perpetuating the flow of illegal workers. Until recently, the Bush Administration was extremely lax in enforcing the law, with virtually no worksite enforcement against employers who hire undocumented workers. In fact, in 2004, only three cases were brought against such employers in the entire United States. During the same calendar year, the administration imposed a grand total of only $118,529 in fines for such violations. By contrast, in just the last two years of the Clinton Administration, the government brought 291 cases against employers and imposed $5.9 million in fines. Enforcement efforts must be carried out in an orderly and humane fashion, but we must reverse this practice of turning a blind eye to employers who knowingly break the law.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 29, 2007 15:56:39 GMT -5
Hey, pretty nasty rhetoric there, Joe. Couldn't one as easily group the Repubs voting against it under "Profiles in Cowardice and Expediency"? I'm curious enogugh to check the websites of many from both parties to learn what they think and what motivated their votes. Reason I singled out the Dems is a.) I'm a Repub, and b.) I'm assuming that most, if not all, of the Repubs had been against it all along. It would be interesting to see not only what the Senators say about it now on their websites but also what they were saying about it two weeks ago. Wonder if that's still available. Might be if they were consistent. Not so likely if they folded Thursday morning.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 29, 2007 18:41:13 GMT -5
Hey, pretty nasty rhetoric there, Joe. Couldn't one as easily group the Repubs voting against it under "Profiles in Cowardice and Expediency"? I'm curious enogugh to check the websites of many from both parties to learn what they think and what motivated their votes. Reason I singled out the Dems is a.) I'm a Repub, and b.) I'm assuming that most, if not all, of the Repubs had been against it all along. Jeepers, how kneejerk can you get? And presumably the Repubs were against it because they're on the side of the angels? Here's the list of those who voted yes: McCain, Kyl, M. Martinez, L. Craig, Lugar, Snowe, Lott, Hagel, Gregg, Specter, Graham and Bennett. It would be interesting to see not only what the Senators say about it now on their websites but also what they were saying about it two weeks ago. Wonder if that's still available. Might be if they were consistent. Not so likely if they folded Thursday morning. Folded which way? I think you're saying all Dems were naturally for this diabolical bill and all Repubs were naturally against it. So the 28 senators who bucked their party were all guilty of cowardice and expediency?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 29, 2007 23:49:40 GMT -5
Reason I singled out the Dems is a.) I'm a Repub, and b.) I'm assuming that most, if not all, of the Repubs had been against it all along. Jeepers, how kneejerk can you get? And presumably the Repubs were against it because they're on the side of the angels? Actually, what I was thinking was more along the lines of "Consistency on principle is important. I canexcuse somebody for voting against cloture if he/she was against the bill all along, but I have a problem if someone voted contrary to his/her conscience." I was making the assumption, possibly incorrect, that all or nearly all of the Republicans who voted against cloture had been against the bill all along and that most of the Democrats who voted against cloture had been in favor of the bill. You should find it telling with respect to where I see "the side of the angels" that my fury was directed at those who I thought scuttled the bill contrary to their consciences, not against anyone who might have votede for the bill contrary to his/her conscience. [/color] It would be interesting to see not only what the Senators say about it now on their websites but also what they were saying about it two weeks ago. Wonder if that's still available. Might be if they were consistent. Not so likely if they folded Thursday morning. Folded which way? I think you're saying all Dems were naturally for this diabolical bill and all Repubs were naturally against it. So the 28 senators who bucked their party were all guilty of cowardice and expediency? [/quote][/quote]No, I was assuming that Republicans who bucked the Republican President did so out of conscience. I was assuming that many of the Democrats who bucked Reid, Clinton, Kennedy, and Obama did so out of cowardice and expediency. My assumptions are, of course, testable by adequate data, as I indicatd.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 30, 2007 0:01:04 GMT -5
I'm convinced of that, too, RMN. I don't know what it looks like, but I know sometimes I "get through." I think we've covered most of our objections to this bill, as well as hopes on some people's part for at least a move in a positive direction. I checked Tom Harkin's web site and found this harkin.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=278062He may be one of our most liberal senators, but he voted no for some good reasons. I'm going to continue perusing sites from all manner of people. I think the inconsistencies in reasoning reveal that for some this is a distinctly racial issue. If we need these workers for jobs no one here will accept, why then did the bill propose new standards for skills - something which, presumabley, would definitely affect competition for jobs? I think it's because many object to ignorant wetbacks , whether they'll admit it or not. Harkin noted that his mother came here with $17 to marry a man from her village. Many of us are just a couple of generations from farm families who couldn't have offered education or special proficiency, just high hopes and hard work. Moreover, giving some preference to family members seems to me a good way to build solid commuities. (Of course, drug dealers' moms might not be an asset.) Our paper reported that 40% of the illegals in this country have overstayed legal visas. That puts a different light on some of the implications that all these people are brazen lawbreakers. And Harkin noted that companies are profiting from cheap labor. we need to send a strong message to employers that they will be held accountable for hiring undocumented workers and perpetuating the flow of illegal workers. Until recently, the Bush Administration was extremely lax in enforcing the law, with virtually no worksite enforcement against employers who hire undocumented workers. In fact, in 2004, only three cases were brought against such employers in the entire United States. During the same calendar year, the administration imposed a grand total of only $118,529 in fines for such violations. By contrast, in just the last two years of the Clinton Administration, the government brought 291 cases against employers and imposed $5.9 million in fines. Enforcement efforts must be carried out in an orderly and humane fashion, but we must reverse this practice of turning a blind eye to employers who knowingly break the law. I checked out the site. //As the bill has been debated and amended, I have listened closely to Iowans from all walks of life. Their concerns about the flaws in this bill are heartfelt, and most are legitimate. One of their most common criticisms is that the bill fails to address the harsh reality that a large, continuous influx of additional immigrant workers – workers who effectively have no rights and are vulnerable to exploitation – is having a negative impact on American jobs and wages. Iowans have told me that immigrant workers too often are pitted against American workers in a way that drives down wages and benefits, and weakens the bargaining power of all workers. I share these concerns.// The problem is that we are evolving into a global economy. I don't think protectionism will work. I think we have to choose between havin jobs in America at lower real wages than previously, or having the jobs go overseas. When the Harkins of our Congress insist on maintaining the income levels of American workers, they are insisting on sending American jobs out of the country.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Jun 30, 2007 0:35:44 GMT -5
I'll be honest here, and say I haven't read all the comments. But I will say this. If the history of human beings is anything, is that, we all tend to move where the eating and living is better. The nation-state is a Renaissance construct. Been that way for some time now. And the consequences can be terrifing. Witness the genius of the Woody Guthrie lyric. ' DEPORTEES by Woody Guthrie The crops are all in and the peaches are rotting The oranges are filed in their creosote dumps They're flying 'em back to the Mexico border To take all their money to wade back again Goodbye to my Juan, farewell Roselita Adios mes amigos, Jesus e Maria You won't have a name when you ride the big airplane All they will call you will be deportees My father's own father, he waded that river They took all the money he made in his life It's six hundred miles to the Mexico border And they chased them like rustlers, like outlaws, like thieves The skyplane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon The great ball of fire it shook all our hills Who are these dear friends who are falling like dry leaves? Radio said, "They are just deportees" Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards? Is this the best way we can raise our good crops? To fall like dry leaves and rot on out topsoil And be known by no names except "deportees"
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Jun 30, 2007 3:25:03 GMT -5
Random thoughts: Someone mentioned before about all the illegals keeping the Social Security system alive. Do we need to legalize them, so their work can float the retirement of us baby boomers? And does the government need them to create a slave society (THAT'S a can of worms right there. ) I guess my biggest concern about building a fence is an image problem. I see some future Russian president having a press conference there saying, "President _______, tear down this fence!"
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 30, 2007 9:43:52 GMT -5
The difference, of course, is that the Berlin Wall was to keep people from leaving, while the fence is to keep people from getting in.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jun 30, 2007 10:36:08 GMT -5
Thanks for the Guthrie song, Dan. There are so many competing needs i think you're right to remember that most of these people are indeed doing what people have always done, all around the world. That motive is what built this country and took it from natives in the first place.
We all see different things depending on our areas, too. I haven't purchased a Hormel product since the strike in the early 80s that the company broke without remorse. Now the meatpacking industry makes nice profits with underpaid workers who don't dare protest.
Agricultural jobs can't go overseas, unless we stop being the breadbasket of the world. Oddly, a great deal of US companies' produce comes from Mexico already. As for the fence, I read that the Arizonans don't want it on their land and Texans are objecting to the surveillance towers. So the secure border argument seems to be loudly voiced but no one wants ito do anything in their own back yard. I suspect I wouldn't either.
When I said I didn't care, I meant that not much will change. I'm just saddened at all the bitterness this has evoked. As if we didn't have enough antagonism as it is.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jun 30, 2007 12:47:17 GMT -5
Point taken about the agri jobs, short term at least. If the supply of foreign-born farmworkers shrinks significantly, agri-biz will have to increase the wages to where Americans will do the work. It could help with our poverty and homelessness problems. Of course we'll be paying more for our food, but it might be worth it.
OTOH, we already import a fair amount of produce, and if American-grown prices get high enough, there might be more of a market for more foreign-source food. So the people who can't come here and work might end up doing comparable work at home for even less than they make here.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Taz on Jun 30, 2007 19:56:05 GMT -5
"If you are illegal, how much are you paying into social security? Federal taxes? Medicare? Medicaid? Local school districts? GK, we're paying the tab. Are there exceptions? Perhaps, but few and far between."
uh, double hunh? this is withheld from the paycheck by the employer. Of course the worker pays it. Yes, and local school districts when you pay your rent you pay your property tax - at a higher rate, btw, than a private home owner.
The GAO says it's at worst a wash, taxes paid and benefits received.
Employers subject to sanctions are not folks who simply are not document experts. a) An employer has a telephone number to dial that says whether or not the social security number is good or not. b) the violators are folks like the canneries and Wal-Mart: They keep copies of good papers on file to show the inspectors; when they hire, they tell the worker the name and number that they're using. I remember a startling conversation with an inspector, once, who didn't know that that's how it's done! The inspectors never get out on the floor to match the papers on file with actual people at work. No innocent employers and deceptive workers involved. The fact is that we are paying people to cross the border and work under the table, just as surely as if we were hiring truckloads of scabs.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Jun 30, 2007 20:51:04 GMT -5
Truckloads of slaves, actually. No legitimate medical benefits, no legitimate grounds to register grievance...Trent Lott and others like him are perpetuating a modern-day slavery system. There's no other way to look at it.
Let's fix the old system. Let's fix the border(s) situation. Let's enforce existing regulations with a passion. Let's speak with Mexico's current head of state as though the man were an adversary. He is. Let's invoke grave, punitive measures on employers who continue to hire illegals.
We’re not even trying.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Taz on Jun 30, 2007 20:59:40 GMT -5
Just to jump in the middle of things - I have way way too much experience of all of this, so I’ll recap stuff that ought to be in the discussion but isn’t, which is why I didn’t think anyone was too serious about this bill in the first place.
1) Immigration law is an extension of foreign policy and has more to do with the State Department than folks realize. We treat a Canadian differently than we treat a North Korean. 2) 40% of the people crossing the southern border are “OTM” - other than Mexican. The immigration pressures into Mexico as a consequence of the permeable US border are putting a horrible strain on Mexico; it is Iberoamerica’s most robust economy.
(That nation’s principal economic drawback is that it has very little arable land - about 2% - yet its folks are culturally and sociospiritually bloody-minded and agricultural with a thousands of years-old tradition of the “ejidio” - the commons, and a sense of the stewardship of the land as part of adult function. In Mexico the masculine ideal is that of a macho, a male mule: Feo, fuerte, y formal. Ugly, strong, and trustworthy.)
3) The Mexicans aren’t terrorists, but other folks are. The PLO has used bases in Peru, Colombia, and Nicaragua from the gitgo, building on Arab bases developed during the early part of the 20th C. The US buying pressure on drugs of course is famous for the horrible destruction it has caused; this can be gutted overnight by legalizing the drugs. Let any idiot over the age of 21 do themselves in as they wish; pharmaceutically pure heroine used to cost only $10/oz about 20 years ago. Instead, save our police, court, prison, educational, and rehab resources to keep the drugs (and money and after-hours) away from people under the age of 18.
4) Quit passing unenforceable laws. It just teaches contempt and, worse, it puts the power of prosecution in the hands of individual police officer who then decide who they’re going to apprehend and for what - thereby shortcircuiting the whole prosecutor/judge/jury system.
5) A global economy is not inevitable. We certainly can and should control the flight of capital, as also control who owns our means of production. I do not consider my life to be improved by having five different $99 coffee tables available for purchase - but no health care. Food so cheap that homes and restaurants throw away more than we eat but folks, including and especially children and old people, without homes.
We have way too many ducks quackiing aorund out of control to talk about being "competitive in a global economy" - the only way to be competitive in a global economy is to lower our workers to the same standard as the workers of China, Africa, and other places. We've already cut them in half - from one parent supporting the family to two; we've upped the price of a house to capture only the cream-end (the bigger the house, the cheaper it is to build/sq ft); we've reduced the number of children (they're nonproductive) and put the old folks to work.
Way to go, way to go.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Jul 1, 2007 8:40:42 GMT -5
Agreed on many points, Taz. I'm particularly swayed toward the legalization of drugs to those over 18 years of age. Of course, it'll not happen in our lifetime. Here is a point on which both Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal agree. Buckley says that rat poison is freely available at your local Ace Hardware and an imbecile is free to purchase this poison and ingest accordingly, should the desire arise. Rational people won't opt for this route, of course. And rational people won't ingest heroin or any other narcotic for that matter. If they do, says Vidal, then so be it.
The two men part company when the discussion turns to societal responsibilities for those addicted to the newly-legalized drugs. Another argument at another time.
|
|
|
Post by Brit on Jul 1, 2007 9:03:02 GMT -5
Can I have clarification on the American use of terminology please?
When you say "legalised" drugs, what exactly do you mean?
In the UK, we are looking closely at "decriminalising" some drugs.
The technical point being, that it is currently a criminal offence (which carries with it, various terms of imprisonment and fines) but decriminalising SOME of the softer stuff reduces the need to imprison these offenders.
They will still be technically "illegal" but possession of them (the softer stuff only) will be no longer "criminal".
Or is anything "illegal" in the US "criminal"?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 1, 2007 10:03:40 GMT -5
Good questions, and I don't know the answers. We definitely are moving toward lesser penalties for drug users, perhaps because our prisons are overloaded with people who are not in any way dangerous. What creates dangerous people is making the drugs illegal so that price and distribution profits lead to vicious gangsters exactly like our esperience with Prohibition. The lesson then was so clear, it's hard to fathom the blind stupidity of our "drug war" over the past 40 or 50 years.
Of course, drugs and alcohol can make people brutal and criminally irresponsible (Paris behind the wheel), but I think current laws against driving impaired or assault can handle that.
I doubt we're anywhere near a public information campaign that says "use responsibly." I'd like to see schools teaching - without censoriousness - the real dangers of messing with your brain. When a kid on some relative of acid jumps out his dorm window, I want to see someone punished. But the better answer might be teaching "safe tripping."
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 2, 2007 9:36:29 GMT -5
Can I have clarification on the American use of terminology please? When you say "legalised" drugs, what exactly do you mean? In the UK, we are looking closely at "decriminalising" some drugs. The technical point being, that it is currently a criminal offence (which carries with it, various terms of imprisonment and fines) but decriminalising SOME of the softer stuff reduces the need to imprison these offenders. They will still be technically "illegal" but possession of them (the softer stuff only) will be no longer "criminal". Or is anything "illegal" in the US "criminal"? We tend to think of "illegal" and "criminal" as synonymous. It's not strictly true, of course. The sorts of things you can sue somebody for are not necessarily crimes. But generally (and I can't think offhand of an exception) a violation of a statute would be prosecutable as a crime and carry a penalty.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 4, 2007 21:22:57 GMT -5
A newspaper column about the vote-switchers sent me to the roll call info. There was a vote whether to consider the bill and then there was the one whether to end debate on it, which then would have led to its passage. Eighteen senators who favored considering the bill voted against ending debate on it. Six were Democrats, and twelve were Republicans. It is possible that some of these Senators intended to vote against the bill even when they voted to bring it up for consideration, although it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But maybe they felt it was important enough that it deserved a debate. Or maybe they hoped to amend it and were unable to get their amendments passed. But it also seems likely that a number of these Senators were "profiles in cowardice" who changed their votes for political expediency.
So I was wrong to assume that it was mostly Democrats who killed the bill by selling out. If none of the Democrats had switched, it still would have taken eight of the Republicans to save the bill by invoking cloture. If none of the Republicans had switched, two of the Democrats would have had to stay in favor for the bill to have stayed alive.
C-Span lists them by state, and I'm not going to go back and put them into alphabetical order.
The Republican switchers were Murkowski and Stevens of Alaska, Brownback of Kansas, McConnell of Kentucky, Collins of Maine, Coleman of Minnesota, Bond of Missouri, Burr of North Carolina, Domenici of New Mexico, Ensign of Nevada, Voinovich of Ohio, and Warner of Virginia.
The Democrats were Pryor of Arizona, Harkin of Iowa, Nelson of Nebraska, Bingaman of New Mexico, Brown of Ohio, and Webb of Virginia.
Modified to add — The previous version of the bill failed by an even wider margin of 34-61. Among the 34 who voted for the earlier version on June 7 but against the later version on June 28 were only four of the above Senators, all Democrats. In other words, the second version of the bill had sixteen senators in favor of it who had opposed the earlier version or missed the vote, and four opposed who had favored the earlier version. The four in question are Harkin of Iowa, Nelson of Nebraska, Bingaman of New Mexico, and Brown of Ohio.
The sixteen who switched to favor the second version after opposing the first or missing the vote included twelve Republicans and four Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Jul 5, 2007 15:18:08 GMT -5
The Republican switchers were ... Domenici of New Mexico... The Democrats were ... Bingaman of New Mexico... So much going on in a border state indicates there is a lot more to the bill than amnesty for illegals,
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 5, 2007 19:57:25 GMT -5
The Republican switchers were ... Domenici of New Mexico... The Democrats were ... Bingaman of New Mexico... So much going on in a border state indicates there is a lot more to the bill than amnesty for illegals, And it's just possible that a number of the people considering all that's going on in the bill are genuiniely torn, trying to do what's right. Some of them, of course, a filthy pigs, and those are all Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Jul 6, 2007 4:43:35 GMT -5
//Point taken about the agri jobs, short term at least. If the supply of foreign-born farmworkers shrinks significantly, agri-biz will have to increase the wages to where Americans will do the work. It could help with our poverty and homelessness problems. Of course we'll be paying more for our food, but it might be worth it.//
This economic model is faulty. Food is now a global market. (Witness the recent problems with Chinese imports.) The United States imports a great deal of its fresh food, vegetables, wine grapes and meat from foreign countries--in particular, Mexico and the countries of South America. Thus, American farmers can't simply raise food prices to cover a rise in labor expenses. They don't control prices; the market determines prices. And the food coming in from nations to the south will continue to be produced with low wage labor. Thus, keeping labor out will result in the increased "export" of food production to foreign countries, especially when coupled with the continuing urbanization of the western United States.
Inspections of incoming food amount, in practical terms, to nothing. There's no enforcement. Due to the growing percentage of imported food, our security vulnerability is immense--unless "the fence" will also keep out peaches, cantaloupes, lettuce and tomatoes!
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 6, 2007 8:59:27 GMT -5
Well, thit. I thought my little pig was funny.
The ag issue is important to me because I want to know what restrictions (however limited) have governed production of the food I eat. I would pay more to buy US produce in hopes of fewer dangerous chemicals. My local grocery manager says many products labeled US are grown in Mexico - Driscoll strawberries for example - and everything we eat is bathed in chemicals from the time the seed goes into the ground.
So Mexican workers come up here to work for wages at least somewhat better than they would earn at home, but the big profits are made by US companies taking advantage of slave labor in other countries?
Deja vu all over again.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Jul 6, 2007 13:47:00 GMT -5
Inspections of incoming food amount, in practical terms, to nothing. There's no enforcement. Due to the growing percentage of imported food, our security vulnerability is immense--unless "the fence" will also keep out peaches, cantaloupes, lettuce and tomatoes! PT, are you saying that, while every time I enter California, I have to stop for an "agricultural inspection" so I won't bring bad produce in from Nevada - BUT, if I entered California from Mexico, I would have no problem? (gk, I know you did it for the pig icon.... ;D)
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 8, 2007 17:26:41 GMT -5
Soz, gk, I've been occupied and didn't see you "pig" message until now. I was actually LOL when I saw it, so consider it a success.
Good points, PT. But I'm not sure how many terrorists you can fit in a canteloupe.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Jul 8, 2007 19:21:19 GMT -5
I thought the pig was cute, and I marvel at gk's ability to find all these cool emoticons on the internet.
Does anyone else remember the pig on the TV show Green Acres? Arnold Ziffle was his name, IIRC, and he was very intelligent and quite clean, not filthy at all. Then there was the film Babe; after that came out, Babe replaced Mr. Ziffle as my favorite pig.
I have read that pigs are even smarter than dogs, which is saying quite a lot. Our dog is much smarter than I am - he barks and I rush to take him out; he does something naughty and I am about to yell at him, then he pulls the "hurt paw" trick so I will cuddle him instead of hollering at him. If pigs are smarter than that - well, I am glad that I don't own a pig, or I'd be a total doormat.
About pigs and politicians - there's dudes and duds on both sides. I think we really saw that on the immigration bill - people of widely varying political beliefs both supporting and opposing the same bill on different grounds.
Reminds me of one of the things my mom always said: A camel is a horse created by a committee. That piece of legislation had so many tack-ons and small changes in it that it pleased no one, all in an attempt to gain passage.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Jul 9, 2007 0:10:01 GMT -5
I'm relieved no one thought I would paint a huge group of people with the same broad brush - as K says, there are pigs across the spectrum. Babe is my all-time favorite movie. I know I've rhapsodized about it before, but the farmer singing Babe out of his sorrowing torpor is right up there with Beethoven's 9th and the Halleluiah Chorus. To all good Republicans! www.pushupstairs.com/images/emoticon/extra1/elefant.gif[/img] Darn! I have a cute bouncy elephant but he won't copy.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Jul 9, 2007 12:17:46 GMT -5
[/img] … [/quote] Thanks, gk! And here's to you and to all good Democrats!
|
|