Redstate

I might add that those who had the opportunity to come legally assimilate faster than those who come illegally.  They learn English faster.  They move outside of majority-Mexican neighborhoods faster, etc.  If assimilation is the main issue (and I think it probably is), then a system that allows more legal immigration or possibly a guest worker program would help the situation.

This outline strikes the exact right balance, and its rationale is great.  Congress would need to put flesh on the bones of this proposal, but the Senate ought to take this outline as the basis for any compromise.

My only complaint is that while I agree with you on the wisdom of abolishing the minimum wage, I do not think that such a provision needs to be part of this deal.  It seems to me that it would be a "poison pill" that would kill any possibility of a compromise.  And as you put it so well in the post, "The cost of doing nothing is greater than even the cost of legitimate enforcement of current laws."

...the Senate Republican Compromise looked anything like this, I'd be happy. Sadly, our Republicans in Congress are capitulating again.

Remind me why we donate so much of our money and time to elect them, again?

Another point to add in support of all of the positions is this: why guard the airports and go apopleptic over Arabs running seaports when thousands are crossing the border by land? It's like putting up ever-finer screens on the windows to keep out mosquitoes, when there's no wall.

First build the wall, then screen for insects.

I think that it looks good.

I don't have a problem with removing the minimum wage, I just don't think its germaine or helpful to try to include it into an immigration bill.

I also didn't see any penalties for people who hire illegal aliens and I think that would probably be the fastest way to make this problem go away.

...this is an acceptable program.  I would add, specifically, that our border counties are in dire need of federal reimbursement for their expenses in dealing with illegal immigrants.

...or, as an American of hispanic descent as I prefer, I would say that most Americans believe in following the law.  We oppose illegal immigration simply because it is, indeed, ILLEGAL.  I am pro-immigration but anti-illegal immigration.

to see a "position paper" from the organization.  We all have opinions about the problem and opinions about the solution.

With any major public policy there will be no unanimous agreement, but as good and faithful citizens we are far better off fighting to consensus than throwing up our hands in defeat and capitulation to a VERY loud minority of "we the people", and those that are NOT part of "we the people" who continue to insist otherwise.

Of all in the position piece; assimilation, fidelity to the Nation, commitment to the laws and processes of our country, I only have one staunch assertion.

We CAN close the border.  What we lack is the belief of it.  As long as they find a path thru the desert, this nightmare will rise again in 10 or 20 years.  I remain committed to a complete closure, north AND south if necessary, along with treating the ports as left and right borders as well (obviously a fence will recede into the oceans but you get my imagery).

There are monetary resources available if only we'd stop funding pork and re-distribute these resources to the construction projects needed...along with the staffing of Military, Homeland Security, INS, Customs, state and local law enforcement, citizen volunteers, and major reform of the rules and laws for civil defense and a resumption of honoring the states' rights to defend themselves, the flow would be stopped.

for many reasons, it'll always be around.

i would instead start fining employers for each illegal they're paying and increasing the fine w/ each new occurance. yep, hard to catch 'em all; especially those paying in cash; but it'll start to turn the tide.

I agree with all seven.  We need legislation to match the reality, and we need immigrants to enter the melting pot (now there's an antiquated phrase).

I think that it should be abolished or at least lowered, but I agree that it probably wont fly politically.

I think a good compromise solution would be at least to have language that states the the minimum wage for foreign workers must be the same as for Americans. No exemptions. If the democrats really believe in their calls for higher minimum wage they would have to go along with that.

We should admit workers only if they want to become Americans. The expectation should be that if they learn the law, learn the language, and obey the law they will become Americans, not be second class human beings who are shipped abroad if their job disappears.

We should also not treat Mexico as a pool of low cost, low skill labor that can be drawn on whenever needed but sent home whenever unneeded. This will keep wages low and make it more difficult than ever for American poor to get a foot on the ladder of upward mobility.

Much of Americas success has been due to the historic high cost of labor. This forced us to come up with the "labor saving devices". These improve returns on capital and labor (i.e. higher profits and wages).

If we use the Mexicans like this we will soon find ourselves with a two class society; the rich and the poor, with little middle class in between. California is trending that way already.

If they come in to work, they must get on the track to becoming citizens. And if they are becoming citizens, we should treat them as such.

for reasoned discussion of the issue.

I would differ primarily with the fifth point, inasmuch as it begs the question of the necessity of such visas and sources of labour by relying upon what will inevitably be the self-interested testimony of businesses that have already gamed the system by supposing that the absence of willing American workers at a rock-bottom wage demonstrates the need for such imported workers.  Let's see how the economy functions, and how Americans benefit, or fail to benefit, if businesses lack that access to lower-wage alternatives, and are forced by those same laws of supply and demand to offer higher wages to willing Americans.  In other words, let's see whether we can achieve a less partial perspective on that specific question.

In fact, my simple three step plan would be:

o Increase LEGAL immigration

o Fine any employer $10,000 per illegal immigrant they hire.

o Deport illegals

Regarding the First Item - The only way to stop the vast majority of illegal immigrants entering this country is to build a fence on our Southern border.  Adding border guards will not do it and until the first item is taken care of, items two through seven are irrelevant.

http://weneedafence.com/

We talked to a number of sherrifs from rural areas in South Texas yesterday.  They were all in agreement that a wall in urban areas is beneficial, but in rural areas it is rather impractical and ineffective -- it also complicates issues like irrigation when both sides of the border use the Rio Grande.

Count this as one Contributor who's with the Directors on this.  I'm in agreement with at least 90% of this, maybe all of it.

Immigration is a good thing, within some rational limits.  And having decent, hard-working families living outside the law is not a good thing, in any type of society.  A rational immigration policy has to reduce the incentives for illegal entry, remove barriers to legal entry, and perform some sort of filtering function that lets us exclude or remove terrorists, crooks, freeloaders, and those who will not be loyal to the United States.

Everyone is at this moment patting themselves on the back for reaching a breakthrough...hmm.

We have, friends, GOP capitulation, and agreeing to give those here more than 5 years citizenship, those here 2-5 a path to citizenship, those here less than 2 a ticket home.

Amnesty has won yet again.

And they are all so proud...

Removing the minimum wage would probably increase American employment, at the expense of illegal employment. The money spent by employers paying illegals under the table could instead be spent on American workers willing to work for less than the minimum. There are a group of American workers willing, even eager to work, but are slowed down by age, or by a disability of one kind or another. The employer who, for example, provides contract janitorial services, may be willing to trade the language barrier of the illegal alien workers for the speed barrier of workers who are elderly, or mentally disabled. The two categories, elderly and mentally disabled, actually work well together--complementing each other's abilities.

Fourth, the minimum wage should be abolished. A basic understanding of the supply and demand curve is all that is needed to understand that a government mandated minimum wage creates unemployment. There may or may not be jobs Americans are willing to do. But clearly there are employers willing to hire illegal immigrants for less than the minimum wage to both get a job done and keep costs down. If an employee is willing to work for a wage an employer sets, they should be permitted to do so.

There is no way this is going to happen, it would be poltically worse than trying to kill not reform social security.

Fifth, expand work visas for workers. If the business community thinks there is a shortage of workers in this country for particular tasks, we should assist the business community through legal means. We should not turn a blind eye to businesses ignoring the law. At the same time we should require any worker on a work visa to leave this country once the work is done unless the worker has valuable job skills from which our national interest would benefit and the worker is willing to become a citizen and assimilate.

I am against a guess worker program, period!  I want to drastically increase the number of green cards we hand out though.  If the worker/immigrant comes to this country, but isn't planning on living her permanently, they will make no effort to try to assimilate.  Additionally we can see the problems of this type of policy all over Europe where in many European nations immigrants aren't allowed to become full citizens, feel disenfranchised, and thus riot and work against the culture.

Sixth, in reality it is most likely that our government has neither the will nor the ability to round up and deport every illegal alien. There is an argument for allowing those who have children who are American citizens or who speak english and have job skills to remain. We think, however, that if such individuals be allowed to stay -- and we have not fully made up our mind -- such individuals should be required to assimilate, submit to a punitive measure for their illegal entry, and work toward citizenship. If any breaks the law before getting citizenship, the felon should be jailed and deported upon expiration of his prison sentence. We don't see a legitimate reason to let illegal aliens remain in this country when they do not speak or are not willing to learn english, commit felonies, or live off the taxpayers

You did not completely say which plan in the senate you are currently for with this comment, but I assume based off your words you would be for the most recent compromise.  I am sorry the most recent compromise is an insult to the Specter/McCain bill and doesn't really work as a matter of documenting the workers.  It in effect creates three catergories, illegals who have been here 5 years or more, 2-5 years, 2 years or less.  The people with 5 years and more follow the original Specter/McCain plan.  

The illegals who have been here 2-5 years must go to El Paso or someother border town, make a nice little "symbolic" border crossing again, and then they get a temp work visa.  They are allowed to apply for a green card in these six years, but they must compete against the 130,000 other Mexicans who want a green card and or citzenship.  There are 3 million illegals who fall into this catergory, in theory only 780,000 can every get a greencard and thus stay here after six years.  The rest are kicked out of the country after the timeframe.  Do you think you are actually going to get these people to register?  No it won't be in there interest too, unless we crack down on employers.  This system isn't going to work.

The people who have been here less than 2 years will have to deport, return to country of origin and apply for a guess worker visa.

and clearly you are allowing room for discussion on point 6.  Well, here's my discussion on point 6:

The punishment for coming here illegally should correspond to benefit gained.  "Forcing" (allowing) illegals to wait for an allotted period of time to elapse (in effect allowing illegals to continue under the status quo while their clock runs), is not restitution for the unlawful act they have committed.  The benefit illegals have gained by coming here unlawfully is participation in our economy.  Those who have abided by the legal immigration process, and have been waiting in their home nation(s), have been denied that benefit.  Therefore, an appropriate restitution for the illegals' unlawful acts should be removal from our economy while awaiting legal status.  After say, 2-5 years out of the country, they could then reapply for legal status.  This would show that the illegal immigrant was now willing to abide by our rule of law and want to embark on a path towards citizenship, and remove the problem of adverse-selection which the current guest-worker amnesty suffers from.

If illegals are willing to assimilate and become Americans, get to the back of the line for the naturalization process, and be self-supportive and law abiding, I can support forgiving their previous unlawful action and giving them a pathway to citizenship: AFTER they've made restitution for the benefit (namely, time in the country) they've received from being here illegally.  

And, as the directors have stated, this pathway should not be available to those who've committed felony.  I would perhaps widen that to those who've committed a crime, be it a felony or misdemeanor.

I am all for increasing legal immigration, I aint for a guess worker program.  Increase our Green Cards to at 500k a year, and if you have some sort of skill (college degree, expertise, want to build a business in the US and have capital, whatever) you shouldn't be counted on the 500k green card list.

And we need to secure the border, for security reasons.

If I didn't address a Red State point above, that means I am in complete agreement with it.

Finally, we have a reasonable stance on immigration. I am sick and tired of certain chats I go on that make me ashamed to be a GOPer. Take a look at some of the less sophisticated chats and you'll see my point. Everything is "wetback this or wetback that." A lot of these immigrants are just trying to make a better life for themselves or their families. I as a conservative can respect that. We should weed out the troublemakers and welcome the rest. There definately should be a fence all the way accross the border. Not some wuss fence that you can just jump or tunnel under either. I mean a seiries of elaborate fences that ACTUALLY provide security. Then, we can have controlled entry points where we can regulate who gets in and out.

But I also concur the minimum wage elimination will never happen.

It would also be perspicacious to add:

• Increase employer fines, which will lessen the illegal labor demand, force a more comprehensive look at their employment policies and eventually increase wages
• Overhaul the legal immigration process, to provide a more structured supply of labor based on real needs (if the current worker visa program worked, would we have this problem?)
• Abolish the US Citizenship birthright (automatic citizenship if born here, irrespective of status). Who else does this?
• Eliminate all US aid to countries refusing repatriation of their citizens
• Make it mandatory for any illegal seeking government assistance (and any organization providing assistance, including hospitals) to register that person. We have hugely successful welfare work programs, yet these people get a free ride? There has got to be an efficient way to get this done

No one should deny we are a nation of immigrants, open to those who seek freedom and a better life. But what we are first is Americans and a nation of laws.  

for illegals to come here to have children is a necessary ingredient.  If we pass a "comprehensive" bill like the Dems are pushing for, we should attach a provision that delays the effective date of the reform until after a Constiutional amendment process addressing the "birthright" issue is completed.  

I am in the camp which believes that illegal immigration is primarily an economic, not a law enforcement, problem. A border as large as ours cannot be fully secured, so illegal immigration will, I suspect, continue, as long as there is such a tremendous economic incentive for such workers.

I strongly support the pull quote of the article. We should use the political momentum to "do something" about immigration to mandate English language usage and general conformity to our culture and laws. The left has fought in years past against English mandates in the public and private sector. Now is the time to force them to give that up as part of the final legislative proposals.

As for those who commit non-immigration-related felonies after they come here, I agree 100%. No citizenship for them. In those rare cases where deportation would be truly an injustice (for example, deporting a young man who doesn't speak Spanish back to a country he left when he was 2 years old on the basis of a relatively minor crime now committed in his early 20s), those rare and isolated circumstances can be addressed through the pardon process in the states. When I was the pardon attorney for our governor here, we had just such a case, and decided to be lenient. But if you came here at 25 and commit a felony, or even a string of misdemeanors, a year or two later, home you go.

We should also impose a hefty fee for the work visa in most cases. Many illegal immigrants already pay smugglers substantial sums to bring them here in dangerous conditions. Let them pay a similar fee to our government, instead, to cover the cost of processing.

The only point I quibble with is the minimum wage. Leaving aside the issue of whether any minimum wage should be imposed or not, what I am hearing from contractor friends is that wages paid to illegal immigrants are fairly comparable to wages paid to everybody else. I'm sure that depends on the industry, but I haven't seen much research on it. Also, politically given the claim that mass immigration would keep wages down, I don't see a minimum wage cut happening in conjunction with anything which expands the routes of legal immigration.

If we abolish birth citizenship, I fear that we will soon have the same problems as in France. Mass communities of immigrants who are not, in fact, deported on their 18th birthdays, who grow increasingly isolated with every generation, who are treated as second-class people with no real chance at assimilation. Where does it stop? If the child born here (who is, in fact, going to grow up here) is not a citizen, then will his children be citizens? If not, will we all be demanding proof of a long line of ancestral citizenship before the benefits of citizenship are granted?

I mean, all of my grandparents and great-grandparents were citizens born in this country, but I couldn't provide birth certificates to prove it. How many current citizens could prove even that their grandmother and grandfather came here legally or were citizens?

The announcement has been made that the senate has come up with a compromise on Immigration.

It allows illegals who have been here more than 5 years to stay. THose under 2 years must leave and get in the process.

Question:  How will they determine how long the illegals have been here?

Will they just ask them?

What proof will they have?

What will stop all 11 million from claiming they have been here over 5 years?

Maybe you guys know what they will do about this.

is a good thing, at reasonable levels, and should continue to be allowed for those who want to become Americans (not foreigners in America).  The primary problem with "guest-worker" status is that it creates a permanent underclass, and codifies a class/ethnic/economic/allegiance division in America.  A pathway towards permanent residency and citizenship is more desirable in my book for the simple reason that it puts the immigrants and native born Americans on the same "side."    

is part and parcel of the problem.  Immigrants don't come here illegally, at risk of life and limb, to secure a chance at living on the dole.

And it's disingenuous and insulting to say there are jobs Americans won't do. Rather, there are jobs Americans can't accept for the wage offered.

The reason there are employment situations American won't take on is the minimum wage.  Why should they, when an easier job pays the same?  People then come here under serious jeopardy to do the less desirable jobs for below the minimum.  Employers can't offer the jobs to citizens without losing money paying the legal minimum.  Legals therefore go unemployed because there are "jobs they won't do", while illegals happily take the jobs.

A secondary effect is to raise the pay rate for more valuable workers and jobs, which again means that employers who can't afford to pay those wages don't hire as many.  

As an example, look at migratory farm workers. What legal will take that job, when McDonald's i hiring?  

Those who want non-citizen labor and want to keep the minimum wage are ignoring the treatment of those at the bottom. It's inhuman to use people the way we're doing. And it all comes from trying to deny capitalism.

Repeal the minimum wage.  

But first, build a wall.

did not knowingly enter the U.S. against the legal process that prevailed at the time.  You ask, where does it end?  It ends when we take control of our immigration process by controlling the border.  As has been stated here before, the first way to get out of a hole is to stop digging it deeper.  As long as the "birthright" provision exists, not only are we providing incentive for illegals to circumvent the legal process, but we are tying our hands in deporting future illegals (hopefully greatly reduced in number after sufficient border safeguards are enacted), who will have children that are citizens.

I don't want to sound like a heartless jerk, but nanny state programs that essentially give away resources for free prevent assimilation. Look at France and much of Europe with the huge problems they have assimilation immigrants.

One of the most important pieces of assimilation is working and being forced into the world with others. When you can sit at home and collection 70% of your previous income for a couple year and have other benefits meaning you have little to provide for yourself, you will wall yourself away from the rest of society.

School choice also plays an important role in assimilating the children of immigrants so the children don't get locked into bad public schools and lead the wrong way. When parents have the ability to pull their children out and move them someplace else, they can keep better control of their children even when they are at school.

Beyond just providing economically for countr, work is good for the person and helps to bring everybody into the fold.

How well our immigrants do seems to be an important indicator of our well our country is. When they stop being able to climb the ladder, we know we are making terrible policy mistakes.

After that they get to vote ( For the democratic party by the way), then they'll want to be unionized; after that, they'll ask for more money (fair wages as the kids are calling it these days), then they'll want healthcare and more entitlements....this whole inmigration debate smells more fishy by the day.  As an inmigrant myself, Im actually angry that we're even thinking about rewarding those who break the laws while at the same time holding those who cant cross the mexican border to a higher standard.

What's even more shameful is that all of this is happening under a republican leadership. If they dont get their act together I'm sitting on my butt in 06.

I'm onboard with all of these and would personally want to see them go a lot further but I agree with abolishing the minimum wage! A low-paying job remains the entry point for those with few marketable skills. The minimum wage hurts the so-called hard-core unemployable by forcing an employer to pay more than the fair value of labor. Every time the government raises the minimum wage, thousands of entry-level jobs get destroyed.

But with that there are a couple of other reforms that need to be enacted to make it viable.

End Welfare, entitlements and special privileges! Welfare for the poor works out to a national average of $12,000 to $13,000 a year (cash and non-cash) per recipient. Why work at minimum wage? Why worry about impregnating someone when the government shields you from financial responsibility? But welfare for the non-poor, or entitlements, are five times as bad. This includes Social Security (the average recipient has put in fifteen cents for every dollar he or she takes out), Medicare, tuition tax credits, farm and dairy subsidies, tobacco subsidies, as well as government ownership or control of airports and utilities.

Drop the Davis-Bacon Act! This little-known act compels contractors bidding on government jobs to pay union wages. This cuts out competent, non-union workers willing to work for less. This hurts minorities, many of whom were for years discriminated against by unions.

Btw I'm really getting tired of hearing people, especially our president, say "there here to do the jobs Americans won't do" along with being untrue is very insulting. The fact is, if we end the welfare state and the entitlement mentality along with real immigration reform we would have the workforce we need.

and one of the primary points I was trying to make.

However, now that debate has ended in the Senate, I doubt any of this is included.

One on immigration and civil disobedience:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=040606D

The other was from my colleague at Strategypage, Austin Bay:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=040606H

Here's the problem: suppose the minimum wage was abolished.  There would still be an effective minimum wage (given that nobody will work for free) for any given job.  Let's call that number 'X'.  Now, for a legal worker, you have to add a few fixed costs and a few percentage-based costs to that 'X': worker's comp, income-tax-withholding, gov't mandated benefits, FICA/Medicare/etc...so the total cost per hour, to the employer, of hiring a legal worker is X+something.  And legal Sally only gets to take home X-withholding (she'll probably get all the withholding back in a year or so -- since she's working at sub-current-minimum-wage -- but that doesn't make any difference to her right now, while she's negotiating what 'X' should be.  She cares about take-home-pay.)  So, in reality, her X is going to be higher than...

But for the illegal worker, the cost to the employer is just X, cash-under-table.  No withholding; illegal Joe gets ALL of X, and X is all the employer pays. Maybe even less_than_X, because the illegal worker has the threat of deportation hanging over him.

So, even in the absence of a mandated minimum wage, the employer's cost is either 'X+something' or 'less_than_X'.  If you're unscrupulous, who're you gonna hire?  Now, granted, in the scenario above, the differential: (X+something - less_than_X) is smaller than it is currently (MinWage+something - less_than_X).

But is the marginal benefit (e.g. some marginal shift in hiring preferences by unscrupulous business owners) really worth torpedoing the rest of the immigration proposals in the original post?

Obviously not.  So, the minwage argument should be removed entirely from the discussion; it's just a barrier to adoption at this point.

There is no doubt that something has to be done to control immigration.  But not even the "breakthough" being announced this minute by Senators Kennedy and McCain is going to solve the problem.

As an aside, the entire debate really reflects nothing more than Congressional sound and fury, signifying nothing!  Just as Congressfolk have railed against Castro and Cuba for decades, knowing full well that the deal struck in 1962 overrides anything they can say or do, the facts of 11 million "illegal" immigrants on the ground overwhelms Congressional posturing and most forms of the legislation being considered.

Controlling immigration will take years, and must start with the border:

1.  Really seal the border.
   
   
2.  Issue anyone coming through a valid entry point an ID, if they are other than tourists.  This begins the process of at least tracking immigrants.
   
   
3.  Pick up everyone without a valid ID (or Green Card, or Citizenship) within 100 miles of the borders, and ship them out of the country!  Immediately!

It may take twenty years, but documenting the flow at the source will eventually ensure that we actually know who's here.

As to the 11 million folks already here, they are NOT going to step forward and say "here I am."  Unless they can, easily and without fear of reprisal or fines (what part of "raise your hand and pay $1,000" does any idiot in Congress think makes sense?).

What we need is a no-questions-asked desk at every DMV, where anybody can get an ID, at no more cost than a Drivers' License (say, fifty bucks to cover costs).  After three or five years (seems like a long time, but how long does it take to get 11 million people through the line at the DMV?) anybody picked up without a valid ID gets shipped out.  Again, immediately!

After folks get registered, then we can deal with whether they should have temporary work permits or paths to citizenship.  Since most are already working (do you really think that they aren't?), probably convert the IDs to work permits and sell the Green Cards!

For that matter, how do you know? Family history tells me that my immigrant ancestors entered legally, but I'm not sure I could prove that. Under your proposal, who would be required to prove the citizenship of their parents in order to be recognized as citizens? You obviously can't have a rule saying anybody who looks hispanic must prove 2 or 3 generations of citizenship. Will new birth certificates have to document the citizenship of the parents?

And what if one parent is an illegal immigrant and one parent a citizen? What if my father and his parents are illegal immigrants, but my mother is the child of an illegal immigrant and a citizen? Does having one legal ancestor in the chain make me a citizen?

Adopt Mexican immigration laws.

I like all the points BTW.

First of all, the scenario you describe is what happens today WITH the minimum wage.  If an illegal is hired, there are no minimum wage restrictions. Plus, with the legal worker there is always the threat of the government raising the minimum wage or the benefits you must pay for.

Secondly, if there were a real (enforced) threat of punishment for hiring that illegal worker, then the question becomes:

Hire legal worker at X+something, or

Hire illegal worker at X, with the threat of XXXXXXX looming over your head at any moment

I'm fine with leaving the minimum wage point in the debate so long as the punishments for breaking the law are strong and enforced.

"birthright" requirements retroactively.  Just going forward.

Ok, so I've got a pre-2006 birth certificate, so I'm good. What happens 20 years from now? 40? 60?

For that matter, what happens in 5 years, when Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez have a baby? Do they prove their citizenship at the hospital when she gives birth? Or do they wait until the baby needs medical treatment under Medicare/Medicaid? Do they then have to prove their own citizenship? When the baby grows up, having been born after this law is passed, how does she prove her own citizenship when she has a child of her own?

Getting rid of birthright citizenship just will not work. Now, we can say that having a child citizen will not keep the parents from being deported, but that's a different thing altogether.

Third, those who wish to immigrate to this country must also assimilate.

Assimilation is a numbers game.  Once a diaspora is rooted, it becomes problematic to remove.  Just as making "music" out of notes requires the artful use of pauses, our immigration success has been far more due to the fact that there have historically breaks in the inflow.  We abandoned that with Teddy Kennedy's Hart-Cellar debacle of 1965.  And we find ourselves having this discussion primarily because we have ignored what has proved, historically, to be more imporant than a constant flow.

We are now a nation of immigrants.

Nonsense.  When have we ever had more foreign-born than native-born?  Never.  This is revisionist.  And it serves only those who wish to subject us to the multicult.

The minimum wage should be abolished.

Hear, hear!

Expand work visas for workers.

No, expand tax-credits for business that come up with innovations that replace many unskilled stoop-laborer with fewer moderate-to-highly-skilled technicians.  An America that needs "help" from outsiders is not America.  It also is derelict in its duty to prepare for a new sort of senior citizen.

We think, however, that if such individuals be allowed to stay, at a minimum, such individuals should be required to assimilate, submit to a punitive measure for their illegal entry, and work toward citizenship.

An amnesty is still an amnesty.  It would multiply our problem tenfold, just as the 1986 "reform" did.  Plus, giving 20 million illegals avenues to citizenship multiplies the number of future imports as the new "citizens" reach out and import their extended families.  Let's all root for the American Quebec!

A country that loses its national identity is no country.

This refutes any actions that do not include pauses in the flow of newcomers.  Again, America's "music" of immigration is dependent on pauses.

We need no new laws until after we've actually endeavored to enforce the ones we already have.  Our best start would be an announced and gradual ratcheting up of enforcement via workplace raids, hefty fines and the public "perp-walks" of a few of the most prominent business leaders who root for us to fail in our attempts to remain a single American culture.

No one is talking about changing "birthright" requirements retroactively yet.  Speaking as the great-grandchild of at least one illegal (admitted criminal, snuck in over a convenient border, explicitly not wanted for any job, had to work under the table for low pay - those bloody Irishmen), I am explicitly not in favor of anything that has the hint of a suggestion of a flavor of 'good blood' and 'bad blood'.  I'm aware that you're not making the argument personally, but in my opinion that's where this concept leads.

At any rate, this is a dead issue.  The USSC has explicitly upheld the concept on several different occasions: the current President will almost certainly not sign any sort of Article III exemption and there isn't the support in Congress for either a veto or a Constitutional Amendment.  So I think that it's not a good idea to hold up immigration reform on something that isn't going to happen anyway.

of requiring parents to bring identification to the hospital.  States can track who is licensed to drive but the federal gov't can't track who is a citizen?  Of course they can, if they have the will to try.

misses the mark.  Since these people are illegals, why are they not deported immediately if they are felons instead of at the end of a prison sentence.  You say you "don't see a legitimate reason to let illegal aliens remain in this country when they do not speak or are not willing to learn english, commit felonies, or live off the taxpayers."  It seems to me that by deporting them instead of imprisoning them we would save us taxpayers a lot of money.  What is the gain by having them serve a lengthy prison sentence at our expense and then having them deported?

Also, this proposed Senate agreement seems to reward illegals for their tenure of being an illegal.  Those who have been here longer get almost a free pass toward citizenship, while all others have more hoops to jump through first.  They are all illegals.  To differentiate the degree of their illegality misses the point entirely.  No matter how they want to dress it up, this is still an amnesty bill.

but the BBK's are very worried that many members (future and current legal Thai immigrants) of our family that are already hampered by the existing repressive immigration system will be further stymied when this system is altered to accomodate those that have broken the law.

but getting rid of the "birthright" requirement has nothing to do with good blood, bad blood, green blood, blue blood.  It has to do with correcting a law that made sense in an era when the world was bigger.  Now, the world's smaller.  Automobiles, speed boats, airplanes and what not.  The logistical hurdles to get into the country are a lot smaller, which means the legal and enforcement hurdles must be a lot bigger if we're going to retain control of the situation.  I'd rather deal with changing the law now than being forced with the uncomforatble choice of separating parents and kids or ceding more control of the immigration process later.

As for retroactive application of such a move, it would seem both a bad idea and impossible to do.  But Moe, unfortunately for you and more unfortunately for me, I'm not omniscient so I can't tell you your fears are completly unfounded.

[there will always be a minimum, call it X]

That assumption is as flawed as the minimum wage, and for many of the same reasons.  The assumption is that there is a fixed point, the same for everyone, below which they will not work.

People of the same skill set have vastly different income requirements.  A high-school kid, college student, homemaker, retiree, or other person with another means of support doesn't necessarily need to support themselves on their wages; they may just need something to do and some income.  They'll be willing to work for less than someone who needs to support themselves or a family.

But that isn't the issue. Immigrants, legal or illegal, will work for less than Alreadies will.  It's not just the benefits+taxes math, but eagerness to work.  

The problem with the minimum wage is that it creates a wider range of jobs for which you can't profitably hire a citizen.  You have to hire an illegal if you're going to make money at it.  

And that is why they come.

Republicans in the Senate: John (The Former "Maverick") McCain, Chuck Hagel...and the other Renegade Republicans who consistently go against their party.

The above mentioned RINO Senators, along with some Democrat Senators had a closed door meeting working out the details on this bogus immigration bill.

Senator Kyl (R-AZ) seems to have been left out of this meeting.

The good news is, this bogus bill will have to go to committee and be reconciled with the House version.  My hope is, the differences will be so great, that it simply won't come to fruition.  Maybe they'll wise up and adopt a bill like the one proposed by RS!

This is pandering to illegals by our congress in the worst way!

with your inclination that there is not support in Congress for such a Constitutional Amendment.  I do wonder if such an amendment would be approved by the States.

1.)  Build the wall -- a heart surgeon should be aware that stopping the bleeding is the first priority.

2.)  Institute the Fair/Flat Tax.  When the paid-cash crowd suddenly has 25% of their money go down the drain (without being eligible for the Prebate), that means less to live on and less to send home -- a tremendous disincentive.

3.)  English-only when dealing with any governmental bureaucracy.

4.)  You don't have to round up 11 million people at once -- have citizenship checks every time someone goes into an emergency room, attempts to open a bank account or rent an apartment, or any other of a thousand different normal transactions.  Slowly but surely the net will collapse on the illegals.

It really isn't that hard -- it will simply take more fortitude than the average congressman or voter is willing to put forth....

... by the mixing legally unemployed and legally employed people in your argument.

You jump from choosing to be employed at minimum wage - at McDonald's - because it pays more than farm work, to choosing to be unemployed rather than work on a farm. I don't see the connection there: from working to unemployed - because of minimum wage.

In addition, if minimum wage means that a legal worker would rather work for McDonald's than work on a farm, what makes the legal worker want to work on a farm when minimum wage is repealed? Aren't the restaurant business and farming about the same when it comes to their narrow margins of profit? Wouldn't both be hard pressed to raise their wages? I'd bet the ratio would remain about the same, and if flipping burgers is so much easier than farm work (I would agree), then even if wages were the same, one would still choose flipping burgers over picking apples.

I can understand an argument that minimum wage laws mean you can't legally work for less, and therefor you choose to be unemployed - to remain within the bounds of law; however, the choice between burgers and apples would remain the same if wages remained at the same ratio; which it seems they would, regardless of minimum wage.

Perhaps there are higher-margin low-paying jobs out there which could increase wages and therefor drive legal workers to work at farms? I can't think of any off hand.

Whatever the impetus, causing mass self-deportation is preferable.  

... have citizenship checks every time someone goes into an emergency room, attempts to open a bank account or rent an apartment, or any other of a thousand different normal transactions.

Yeah, that's just what I need, more crap to carry around in my wallet to prove I'm who I really am, thousands of times during normal transactions.

Can't we just have some sort of secret password? I hate paper work.

The good news with this plan: employing the thousands of people needed to do these sort of background checks could help end unemployment!

;-D

The USSC has explicitly upheld the concept on several different occasions

I presume he's referring to what we always fight about on this. He cites case law that means something other than what he says it means, and we go around and around over what "plenary jurisdiction" means.

Third, those who wish to immigrate to this country must also assimilate. Ours was originally a nation of colonists -- people intent on bringing their way of life to a new world. We are now a nation of immigrants -- people who want what the new world has to offer. To get what we offer, immigrants should in turn assimilate. Their first loyalties must be to this country, not their old country. Our language must become their language. Our traditions must become their traditions -- they can keep their own and add to our own, but they must first be willing to take on our cultural traditions.

I can see that testing English skills can show some assimilation. How do you test for traditions and loyalties before giving citizenship? And if immigrant citizens are "allowed" to add to our traditions, how do we keep track of what the current traditions are?

I'm still not willing to take the risk, but it's a fair response.

...is that while I freely admit that IANAL, when it comes to this issue it looks like the Supreme Court agrees with me anyway.  

Besides, everybody needs a fatal flaw in their character, right?  :)

Why not continue to speak spanish, french, russian, whatever? I've never understood the importance attached to this issue.

Thus, I'm open to correction with a mere citation that treats jurisdiction as anything other than plenary jurisdiction -- and all the rest.

Nobody is saying you have to stop speaking your native tongue. But why is it important? Puisqu'il est plus facile de communiquer et conduire les affaires qui manière. Il y a également un meilleur sens de la communauté.

that's why.

embroidered on bowling shirts :-)

If there are any now, they should be enforced.  If not, new ones should be sensible and enforceable.

What sense is there in criminalizing employers when we have judges decreeing that we, the taxpayers, must pay for the education and health care of the illegals?  Why punish one group of Americans while demanding that another group of Americans serve the illegal community as if they belonged here?

Serious employer sanctions demand the introduction of a very hard to counterfeit ID card.  It could be made available to anyone, not required of anyone, but if an employer hires someone who has such a card, he wouldn't be held culpable of breaking the law.  It would be up to the employer to decide which job applicants needed to have a card.

I was sweating the "blam" for a few minutes there.

at McDonald's - because it pays more than farm work

For legal workers, McDonalds and a farm pay the same, so they choose the job they'd rather do.  

what makes the legal worker want to work on a farm when minimum wage is repealed?

If McDonalds is not hiring, but the farm is, the choice is the farm or the dole.  

It's difficult, both for me and for you, I think, to separate our image of McDonalds and of an orchard from the labor center they represent.  McDonalds requires certain skills, such as a 200-word vocabulary, working inside a system and team environment, and decent hygiene.  A farm requires physical stamina, the ability to work alone, and willingness to migrate as needed.  So the two aren't equivalent in the skills required, and shouldn't have the same standard for pay.

One key that you need to understand my position is that I don't think the policy should encourage any illegal workers, guest workers, or other such use of humans as draft animals.  If they can't become citizens, it strikes me in the best case as abandoning our title of haven of liberty, and in the worst as inviting insurrection.

The only stata that are acceptable to me are citizenship and "invited worker" -- someone who has a specific skill and to whom an employer wants to extend an invitation.  That practice ought to be discouraged, somehow, and limited to athletes, entertainers, professionals, technicians and the like. Without disincentives, it could easily turn into a truck-sized loophole.  

I can get behind a "guest worker on the path to citizenship" status, since living in the U.S. is the best way to get someone to want to live here, and it gives them time to assimilate before taking the oath.

(In all of this I'll allow for the possibility that I don't know what I'm talking about.  Happens a lot.)

across the border to get to the Rio Grande?

The benefits of a complete fence are:

There would be no 'end-around plays' available to circumvent border security.

The fact of an effective fence is that it significantly slows down those wishing to go through/over it, and it discourages others from trying.

With the flow slowed, other more high-tech measures can work effectively, and at lower cost than posting border guards every two hundred yards.  A helicopter-equipped quick-response force within the Border Patrol should be able to respond to incursions in remote areas fast enough to round up the interlopers.

There wasn't much Republican support, what with McCain talking about how he didn't have the votes for McCain-Kennedy. He needed all of what, 6 Republicans to vote for it along with all the Democrats and he couldn't get it?

with "please God let the next one be a spare" or something, right?

Just because some law enforcement people say something is so doesn't make it so. Just about every police chief and sheriff in any urban county is a huge proponent of gun control... as restrictive as can be. Does that mean it works?

Seems to me a wall can't help but assist border patrol in guarding the border. It gives them much more time to respond to infiltrators and excludes vehicles so they aren't dealing with SUVs or Jeeps (or the Mexican army, which ventures into US territory regularly). It also greatly increases the chance that we can apprehend them rather than having them run back across the border where we can't touch them... and they can just try again in 24 hours.

The cost of doing nothing is NOT greater than the cost of the compromise reached today.  If anything like this "compromise" passes, it will not curb illegal immigration but encourage it.

You offered no insult, pointed no sticks, had no prior warnings in play and ignored no hints.  I'm capricious, not malicious.

With the exception of the minimum wage abolition --- which would never pass even one house of Congress let alone become law and would be very politically harmful --- I am in complete agreement with all of the RedState immigration points outlined in this post.  Further, I think while conservatives are clearly going through a heated intra-movement debate on the issue, the platform that RedState has put forth is something that the vast majority of conservatives can agree on.  I think that these points are what separate conservatives from everyone else on the issue of immigration.  In other words, I think that most conservatives would agree with at least 90% of what RedState has laid out in this post, and I think anyone who disagrees with the majority of this post does not view society and government through the prism of conservatism, but through some other ideology or worldview.

Again, great post.

but after considering the comments, it occurs to me that the 'birthright' situation is primarily a problem because of the out-of-control border situation.  

After all, we have had the children of foreign nationals born in this country for years.  We knew what was going on, because their parents were here legally.  If the parents become American citizens, fine, all is well.  If they don't, but become legal permanent residents, fine, all is well.  If the parents go home to the old country, they take their children with them, fine, all is well.

The problem exists now because so many parents are here illegally and they seem to want to use their citizen children to bootstrap themselves into legal status.  Not fine, and all is not well.

Without further review, I have the feeling that the children of people here illegally should not be awarded citizenship, but those of legal parents should continue.  That way, incentive for illegal entry is reduced, but incentive for legal entry is increased.

not being easily able to get back across.

Another point in favor of a physical barrier.

give the man a cigar.

that they will come forward with the info at all?  Or be asked?  There is a reason besides the work that many are here illegally.  They don't have to pay taxes or contribute to society in any way.  Just collect a paycheck.  Why would they want to be documented, pay a fine, assimilate and be accounted for by the Government?  To assume that all the illegals here will abide by this legislation when they have skirted the law in the past is delusional.

To be clear, I am not using a broad brush to paint all illegals here as shady characters but I think a huge chunk of them are.  I'm sure some of them are great people but they should still follow our laws.  This legislation, if enacted, will not compel them to do so.  It is a joke.

I'd get several IDs, all under assumed names, and after a little bit of preparation, I'd have a blast on eBay.

Well, maybe I wouldn't, but somebody would.

How does it help for everybody to have an ID that you can pick up without proof of who you really are?

different ideas.

Logically coherent.

He definitely had DeWine, Graham, Brownback, Himself, Cheney in the event of a tie, plus probably a few others...

For unskilled workers.  Our economy needs them or else illegals will fill the void.  We need to up the number from 80k H-2B visas to 400K H-2B visas per year.

Wouldn't he have the votes? Who on the Democrat side wouldn't vote for McCain-Kennedy? Thats why I figured he only needed a half dozen Republican votes.

I guess I need to go back to math class.

Accompanied by more H-2B visas for unskilled workers so that people can come here and work legally and help sustain our booming economy.

We could resurrect and adopt the Ancient Sumerian language as our national language?  

If you meant "issues that matter", you should have said "les affaires qui importent" or "les affaires importantes". "Maniere" in French means "manner", as a noun, not "matter" as a verb.

I lived in France for 11 years, and am "au courant des nuances de la langue francaise". Although I have lots of trouble understanding their protests against a common-sense law allowing people to be fired...and hired!

Number of visas to something more reasonable (and specifically targeting Latin America), but I see zero economic risk in not doing it. I really don't buy the argument that there is an extreme shortage of unskilled workers. And even if there was, they are hardly the driver of our economy. I would take skilled workers over unskilled workers any day.

Reducing citizenship to offspring might provide a disincentive to illegal immigration, though I'm not sure how many of them really base their decision to risk the border crossing on the hopes of obtaining citizenship for their kids. As I said earlier, some of that could be eliminated by removing any restrictions on deporting them, along with their citizen children (if such is not already the law anyway).

But that's not my biggest concern. My concern is 20 and 30 years from now, when these kids, who have lived in the U.S. their entire lives with their illegal alien parents, are adults and having kids of their own. Look what happened with the riots in France in part because the children of Muslim immigrants had no opportunity to assimilate and become French citizens. This would strongly discourage assimilation, when what will really help solve the problems is greater assimilation.

think birthright would be the subject of so much discussion. Nontheless, I believe Flagstaff nailed it dead center. A comprehensive, common sense approach would not include using the birth of your child as a "wedge" towards your own citizenship or receipt of government cheese.

Just ask the people of California who spent over a billion of their hard earned dollars to pay for illegal immigrant healthcare.

A CAO corona, maduro wrap.  Nice work, Flagstaff.

I have no problem with temporary work permits, so that taxes can be collected and so we know who is actually in the country. You have to be a fool or a liar to not know that illegals are paid in CASH, off the books, with no taxes collected.

So I support doing the best we can to close the border, then we can issue work permits and tax numbers to all those that are in the country. By closing the border we can at least control the majority of the problem.

There is no point in supporting asolution that does nothing to stop the next 15 million from showing up.

No border enforcement, no support from me.

...Since we (fortunately) have plenty of skilled workers that we produce within our boarders, the need for unskilled workers is high.  I think this is a tribute to just how strong an economy we have.

I agree with your conclusion b/c it is precisely the situation of illegals bootstrapping their way in that worries me.  I have no trouble with legal immigrants' children being awarded citizenship b/c they have respected the law, and therefore the American people remain in charge of the process.  However, just as with my suggestion, there is the chance this would require Constitutional amendment and anyway it seems the President is opposed, according to comments above.

There are no shortage of native born unskilled workers. And the millions of illegals we are giving amnesty aren't going anywhere. If there is one thing our education system can do well, it is produce graduates without any useful skills.

An unskilled immigrant consumes much more in services than he pays in taxes. Much of the money he earns is sent home. They are used as a crutch to keep inefficient businesses open that shouldn't be operating at all... and even with illegal labor may only operating because of tariffs (on sugar or avocados for example).

A skilled immigrant more than pays for himself in taxes. He also contributes much more to the economy. When there is a shortage of skilled workers, instead of picking up illegals to work here, we just move the entire operation to another country.

My name...Jose Jimenez. I com from south o de border. I doh know frijoles bout meenimem wage but I sure like Merica--land where everything free.

At a time when some of the dialogue on immigration seemed to conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration, and nativism appeared to be rearing its ugly head in some parts of the Republican Party, Redstate comes through with a set of principles that I believe strikes the right balance: opposing illegal immigration, yet remaining pro-immigrant.

I am further encouraged by the comments of the Redstate community that supports legal immigrants, supports integration and assimilation, while opposing the lawbreaking that is going on in our borders and rejecting silly multiculturalism.

Thank you to all.

-TS

And this is notably the first time "Socrates" ever agreed with a "sophist" :-).

I think that most conservatives would agree with at least 90% of what RedState has laid out in this post, and I think anyone who disagrees with the majority of this post does not view society and government through the prism of conservatism, but through some other ideology or worldview.

I disagree with 90% of what was written because it reaches for unprovable hypotheses about the current/recent crop of immigrants and will lead us to legislation that will fail more miserably than in 1986 and 1996.  This position paper is based solely in the here an now; thus, it cannot be clear when viewed through any prism of true conservatism.  It gives gives zero reassurance to those of us interested in why and/or how important cyclical patterns (as opposed to an unabated flows) have been to America's very unique-in-the-world history of successful immigration. Beyond unenforceable points on language, it gives meaningful assimilation the short-shrift.

This conservative will never view as complete any "plan" or "position paper" that purportedly represents "the conservative point of view" that does not both acknowledge and embrace history's lessons as foundational template. And I take great offense at those who would define traditionalists like me out of the realm of conservatism to claim it for their own neoconservative-leaning selves.  

...bust my chops about my broken French! :-)

 Honestly, I just babelfish'd it. Although I took french for about 7 years in school I doubt I could tell the difference between an irregular verb and a regular one these days.

FTR I think I wrote something like:

"Because it is easier to communicate and conduct business. There is also a better sense of community."

Should have written it in Taihitian...less scrutiny!

Haere maru! (take it easy!)

Some operations like farms, restaurants, and building maintenance cannot be moved to other countries.  There is enough demand for unskilled workers in these areas to increase the number of H-2B visas.  This will also reduce the number of people who sneak here illegally.

I've learned that when I see these abbreviations that it is best to Google them, rather than just guessing at their meaning.  For those who haven't looked, this means "I am not a lawyer.

However, before I looked it up, I had already figured out from the context that it had something to do with Moe not being a lawyer, so my mind came up with another possible meaning, that is somewhat more colloquial -- "I ain't no *** lawyer."  I figured that maybe Moe just abbreviated it to avoid violating Red State's rule against profanity.

Winston Churchill once said that the US & Britian were countries separated by a common language.

I'm too much a generalist to form solid opinions, which is why I like visiting both sides of debates. So, I allow that I may not know what I'm talking about as well. :)

I think I'm grasping what you are saying. You suggest that by removing minimum wage, and by removing the illegal immigrants the restaurant job and the farm jobs are put into perspective. Thus the wages of the farm job should rise above the wages at Micky-Dee's.

Do food prices rise because of this? It seems that  produce prices must rise because the narrow margins at the farm must be compensated for by a rise in prices to balance the rise in wages. Then the tight margins in restaurants in turn cause a rise in prices, to compensate for the rise in produce prices, probably lowering the number of fast food and smaller restaurants that can survive. Then less jobs in restaurants and a demand for restaurant jobs lowers wages in restaurants even more... then do the wages at farms can go down because farm jobs start to look good again?

Just talking out loud, I'm not an economist, nor do I play one on TV. For the record, I don't like the idea of any sort of low-cost labor at the expense of the laborer. I think that guest workers, illegal or not, should be treated humanely, including a decent wage. I'm just not sure what a decent wage is, for instance: can it be below minimum wage?

Most Americans oppose increasing legal immigration.  Preference for decreasing legal immigration or keeping current levels generally battle it out for plurality or majority status, but support for increases are always very small.  

On this I side with the majority, and while people can argue both sides, I do find the suggestion that we must allow more people annually to be insulting, as we obviously are under no obligation to admit anyone.  If we take it to its extreme, then why not admit everyone who wants to come (and who meets the usual caveats about not being a criminal/terrorist threat and not being a public charge)?  This idea often put forth that Americans love immigrants but hate immigration is too simplistic, as it would be more accurate to say Americans love immigrants but dislike mass immigration, legal or illegal.  Assimilation is key, and it makes sense that it would function much more smoothly in an environment of less immigration.

But anyway, while I'd oppose an increase in legal immigration, it would nonetheless be much easier to accept if proponents of it passed it honestly.  Don't push a fraud on the nation like Ted Kennedy did in 1965.  Tell us, how many more immigrants would any proposed legislation admit on top of the approximately one million legal immigrants we already admit each year?

And don't call something a 'Guest Worker' program if it actually allows the 'guests' to stay permanently w/o first returning home and getting in the normal line.  If the 'guest' are to be allowed to stay, and pursue citizenship, then call it what it truly is -- a large increase in legal immigration.  

Yes, very few support ending legal immigration, and most support some level of legal immigration.  But the question is, what constitutes a 'reasonable level?'  

We already admit about one million legal immigrants per year.  Most would like to either see that level remain the same, or be decreased.  Very few support an increase, and that no doubt helps explain why the sponsors of the various pieces of legislation that does increase legal immigration are not out there hyping up that aspect of their proposals.  

...to confuse people by using English. Would we? ;-)

... after feeling forced leave my life-long home in South Florida.  Well, it actually left me first. I took the lessons I learned there to heart.  

I've been studying this immigration issue in earnest for 20 years.  Never was I so hopeful as when Sensenbrenner's enforcement first bill passed in December. I thought: "yes! let's prove we can enforce border laws effectively, consistently and for a while before we explore more ways to forgive lawbreakers who can only encourage more to break into our sovereign nation if (when?) enforcement fails."

On the other hand, never have I been so down as when listening to the obfuscators of Amnesty in the Senate these past few weeks.  

Most importantly, never have I been so angry as when I saw Mexican flags despoiling our streets...except for when I saw the Cuban flags flying above American flags in Miami 20 years ago.  Ethnic demands for accommodation beyond legitimate rights is far from being a new thing, you know? Such displays are symptomatic of a determination to not assimilate, not just in America, but everywhere diasporas thrive uncontested for too long. Ask France.  Or Denmark.  Or England...

When you say, "We believe this nation can accept more immigrants", I take it that you mean that you think we should admit more legal immigrants each year.  Well that is not a position supported by most Americans, let alone most conservatives.  

The idea that we should solve the illegal immigration problem by increasing legal slots to such an extent that pretty much everyone who wants to come can do so (and who are not criminals, terrorists, etc) legally, is not a traditionally conservative position.  It is the position of the WSJournal wing of the party, but that's about it from the Right, while its a pretty common position of the leaders on the Left, if not the rank and file Democrats, many of whom are also wary of mass immigration.  

The leaders of the Left/Democrats support any and all increases in legal immigration for the simple reason that most naturalized immigrants who go on to vote, will vote Democratic.  That's just a fact.  We may not like it, but some times the truth hurts.  Maybe we can change that.  Hopefully we can change that, but I think that the greater the level of immigration, the harder our task is in that regard, and the easier it is for the pandering/demagogic Left.

Eighth, we should be charitable.  As your fifth principle points out, migrant workers can be a finicial boon to our economy, which means that allowing SOME migration is in our own financial self-interest.  However, considerations of our own financial self-interest should not preempt the field.  We should also be charitable, in keeping with the great history of our nation.  We should allow more immigrants to migrate to America than we otherwise would allow if we were only concerned about maximizing own self-interest.

Ninth, we need strict enforcement of our immigration laws.  The best way to enforce these laws is to destroy the incentive for coming here illegally.  We do that in two ways.  First, we do away with the law that says that children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States are automatically U.S. citizens.  This law practically begs illegal immigrants to violate our laws so that their children will have opportunities they did not have.  Second, we need to do more than simply fine employers and threaten to deport illegal immigrants.  We need to make it clear that if we find someone in our country illegally, we will take everything they own before sending them back where they came from.  If they own a house, we will take their house; if they have a bank account, we will seize the money in that account.  If they own a car, it will now be our car.  Only by destroying the American dream for those who come here illegally, by placing them in constant fear that everything they own can be taken from them in an instant, can we properly channel would-be immigrants to cross what ever hurdles need be crossed to come here legally.  At the same time, we need to make legal migration MUCH more easy than it presently is.

Well said!  I like it.  See my post regarding two additional principles of immigration reform.

...and some cases should be moved to other countries. We artificially keep them here by offering them massive subsidies in the form of direct aid, crop insurance, tariffs, and of course a nice supply of illegal employees they can pay under the table in cash.

If it wasn't for all that, some of these guys would go out of business... but we would be better off for it. It would cost us much less to have them on welfare than to support their business with public funds.

Aurelian,

No one is suggesting we take it to the extreme.  We obviously cannot admit everyone who wants to come, but equally obvious: we can admit more people than we are presently admitting.  I think there is a strong case to be made that we would be financially better off by allowing more legal migration, but even if we are not, I think this is an instance were we can exercise a little charity to give some good, hard-working people a hand up.  

When you say, "We believe this nation can accept more immigrants", I take it that you mean that you think we should admit more legal immigrants each year.  Well that is not a position supported by most Americans, let alone most conservatives.

That's really neither here nor there. There are undoubtedly a number of sensible positions the editors of this site would endorse that would be opposed by majorities of Americans (and even conservative Americans).

The idea that we should solve the illegal immigration problem by increasing legal slots to such an extent that pretty much everyone who wants to come can do so (and who are not criminals, terrorists, etc) legally, is not a traditionally conservative position.

Emphasis added. Who is advocating this? I read the RS statement (sound ideas, there, gentlemen!) but didn't see anything supportive of immigration levels enabling "pretty much everyone who wants" to do so to come here. I, too, favor increases in immigration inflows as part of an effort to undermine the incentive to immigrate against the law, and indeed favor numbers likely larger than the editors. But favoring, say, 2 million a year (roughly double what we allow now) or even the 3 million favored by Adam C (at least that's a number I've read him advocate on this site) is a far cry from being a card-carrying member of the Open Borders Club.

Of course we can admit more people, but its far from obvious that to do so would be the best thing for the nation.  How do you know we wouldn't be better off with less immigration?

As to charity; the goal of public policy should be to seek the betterment of current citizens.  Its sad how little of the rhetoric and proposed policy puts forth this obvious fact.  We hear a lot about doing right by the 8-12 million illegal immigrants, and the millions more who want to come, but not much about pursuing the interests of average Americans.  

But anyway, it all comes back to numbers.  Even if we went back to the low-moderate levels of immigration which followed the end of the last European wave (and no doubt helped assimilate those Europeans), then we'd still be admitting upwards of 250-300,000 immigrants per year.  Since we dont' have to admit anyone, even that would be generous.  As it stands today, we already admit about one million legal immigrants per year, so putting aside the extreme I put forth, how many more each year do you think we should admit?  Half a million?  One million? 2 million?  How charitable do you want to be?  

Its a disgrace that so much of the burden to be hospitable is placed on the United States, and not the corrupt elites who rule Mexico, and who would rather export their surplus population instead of making the necessary reforms that could possibly make it so that millions of Mexicans would not feel the need to head north.  Why don't our Senators and President demand a little more from Mexico to put its own house in order?  

I'm not saying that all positions must be pitted against public opinion polls, but if we are trying to find common ground that conservatives can rally behind, then its not a good idea to include positions clearly at odds with most conservatives.  And increasing immigration is such an idea.  Whether or not increasing, or decreasing, legal immigration is sensible or not is a matter of debate, but it makes little sense to speak on behalf of conservatives in saying that we should have more.  I realize that the editors hear stopped short of that, and instead puts forth this as what they agree on, but even that is a bit surprising since it says there is not even one director on this leading conservative site who agrees with most conservatives on what should be done with legal immigration.

Though I completely disagree with you, I do respect that you are at least open about favoring much more legal immigration, and I appreciate that you've put forth your views without the sanctimonious tone of so many who favor more immigration.  Again, I'm not saying that anyone in this thread has used such a holier-than-thou attitude, but it is annoying how many who favor increased legal immigration think that such a position grants them some moral superiority over those who disagree.  The WSJournal editorial pages are a good example of this.

As to the numbers; I don't think that admitting more legal immigration as a means to fight illegal immigration is a valid or good reason.  That is to surrender to the will of non-Americans who want to come here, and such considerations should not be a factor in setting US immigration policy.   Allowing more legal immigration should only be permitted if it is a good thing for current US citizens.  I don't think it would be.  You do.  But that should be the benchmark for the debate.  If we want to dis-incentivize illegal immigration, then there are other things we could try.  

But anyway, even though we disagree, would you at least grant me the following;

 --- Sponsors of legislation (and the legislation itself) that would increase legal immigration should be completely upfront about it.  They should not hide it in some deceptively titled bill, and they should not shy away from specifics.  They should tell us exactly how much more immigration they are allowing.  There should be no surprises as happened with Ted Kennedy's fraudulent 1965 reform bill, which basically unleashed everything Kennedy promised that it wouldn't.  

Allowing more legal immigration should only be permitted if it is a good thing for current US citizens.  I don't think it would be.  You do.  But that should be the benchmark for the debate.

I agree with you here, and yes, I do believe allowing more immigration would be good for the country. Respectfully, though, I would submit that comments such as your previous one about allowing in virtually "everybody who wants to" move us away from that realstic debate. Indeed, about 90% of the current debate about immigration ultimately comes down to the question of "how much of it should we have." IIRC, even Pat Buchanan doesn't want no immigration -- he just wants a "breather" that would  lower it to (I think) 250,000 annually.  

FWIW I think more legal immigration would be good for the country because (among other reasons), as part of a sensible set of reforms, larger legal immigration admissions will help to undermine the economic incentive to immigrate illegally, and that, in and of itself (smaller illegal inflows), or course, would be good for America.

Sponsors of legislation (and the legislation itself) that would increase legal immigration should be completely upfront about it.  They should not hide it in some deceptively titled bill, and they should not shy away from specifics.  They should tell us exactly how much more immigration they are allowing.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Immigration policy is a matter of law, and is therefore a matter of public record. Any legislation increasing immigration quotas will be widely reported, and debated on sites such as this.

First off, I'd like to thank you for actually getting Pat Buchanan's position correct.  I've always heard him say that he thinks legal levels should be set between 200-300,000 per year, yet many have a false idea that he doesn't want to admit anyone.  I think some get hung up on the call for a 'moratorium', but again, Buchanan and others define this as setting immigration at a level approximately equal to emigration, and that is the above mentioned range.

Again, one of my points is that noone has a right to immigrate to the US.  It is a gift.  So the possibility that increasing legal immigration might alleviate illegal immigration does not serve as a good argument for the former.  That suggests a mindset that says we must set policy with the desires of those seeking to enter in mind.  Since we have never really been serious about stopping illegal immigration, I don't buy that its unstoppable.  

I have to disagree about the effects on legal immigration of currently proposed legislation getting much attention.  Back when Bush started pushing for an amnesty/guest worker plan, I remember him generally throwing in a line or two about increasing the number of legal visas, yet it got almost no attention as it was buried beneath the more contentious matter of dealing with illegal immigration.  When Frist came out with his alternative to the McCain/Kennedy amnesty/guest worker plan, the provisions in it increasing legal immigration did not get much attention, but then again, neither did the entire bill.  

And I think its quite clear that the proposed 'guest' or 'temporary' worker plans are in fact large increases in legal immigration.    The sponsors of all these bills have carefully chosen the words 'guest' and 'temporary' because they know what they suggests to most Americans, who won't be carefully studying the details of proposed legislation.  When people hear such words, they naturally think that the workers in question will indeed return home at some point, but is that so?  I dont' think so.  Just think about it:  Are the 'guests' required to go home?  Can they bring their families with them, because if so, then it is only increases the chances that they will want to remain?  If sponsors of the pending 'guest' worker programs were committed to a truly honest debate, then they would just go ahead and call their plans what they truly are -- large increases in permanent immigration.  If one wants to use 'guest' or 'temporary' then their bills should require that the 'guests' go home, and it would make no sense to allow someone here 'temporarily' to bring their families with them.

And again, just remember the 1965 immigration reform championed by Ted Kennedy.  Among the many promises he made about the bill that proved false, was the assurance that it would not significantly increase the amount of legal immigration.  It did.

So that is what I'm talking about.  Those pushing for more, or less, immigration should set explict limits.  We should never have another repeat of 1965.  If someone passes a bill claiming it will bring in an additional 500,000 immigrants per year, and then gets the indirect approval of the nation (since obviously, and unfortunately for my side, there is no direct national referenda) then language in the bill should give force to that promise.

Ideally, I'd like to see separate legislation for all the various aspects of immigration reform, so as to decrease the chance of unpopular items being passed along with popular ones.  That would mean separate bills dealing with border security, interior enforcement, illegal aliens, guest-worker plans, and legal immigration policy.  

"The Farm Bill"

The RINOs are: Chaffee, Snowe, Collins, and (sometimes) Spector.

McCain and Hagel simply favor Wall Street Journal Conservatism / Free Market conservatism over Buchanan / Protectionist conservatism.  

McCain was with Bush on the Ports Deal when the populist RINOs sunk this deal and dealt a blow to free trade.

I hope Bill Frist has kept his scalpel sharp - he just kissed his chance at ever being President goodbye.

And, say goodbye in all likelihood to Republican control of at least one legislative entity this November.  Frist, McCain, DeWine, Graham - all of them figure this is a no-brainer, because the Dems only disagree with them on the terms of immigration reform (read: Amnesty), and so can't use it against them.

Wrong.  Give a listen to talk radio and the blogsphere today. If the Repubs champion this cause, enough conservatives are going to sit this mid-term out.

And I think its quite clear that the proposed 'guest' or 'temporary' worker plans are in fact large increases in legal immigration.  

Well, I think that many of the various powers that be who support more legal immigration fear that they won't be able to get an increase passed, or that perhaps they will be punished politically at the polls, should their legislation make it through. So, they propose a policy of highly questionable wisdom (guest workers) that sounds more palatable than simply asking for more legal immigration. I think this White House is simply too political, to a fault: they're rarely willing to exert political leadership, or take political risks, on domestic issues. I'm not a big fan of a guest worker plan, and would WAY rather we simply increase the issuance of green cards. I guess what I'm saying is: I wish the proposal for guest workers were the same as a straightforward, large increase in immigration, but I doubt that's exactly what we'll be getting, should it go through. I think there's a fair chance, though, that nothing will get enacted before November, and that next year, the various voices arguing for a plain old increase in immmigration admissions may get louder, and that we'll see such an increase in conjunction with other, enforcement-oriented measures such as heavily beefed-up border security and a new employment eligibility verification system (both of which I support, by the way).

...corazon... lol...

Unemployment is down to 4.7 nationally...it can't get much lower, realistically. Now if you want to make all of those jobs in Michigan, where we have something above 7 percent, that's ok...we can become the background check capitol of the workd!

McCain Party.  He doesn't give a rip about anything but John McCain.  Hagel is jealous.

McCain has zero trust in markets. His economics are socialist, not free market. He is not a WSJ conservative at all. RINO is the certainly the right category for him. He belongs there more than Specter.

This is his voting record on taxes and spending.  He gets a B+; however the biggest danger to our economy right now is this new Populist Perot Protectionism shown by opposition to Dubai ports and Bush's immigration plan...what's in the past is in the past

Budget, Spending and Taxes

(Back to top)

2005  Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 78 percent in 2005.

2004  Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 77 percent in 2004.

2004  On the votes that the American Shareholders Association considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

2004  On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2004, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

2004  Senator McCain supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 70 percent in 2004.

2003-2004  Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 80 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004  Senator McCain supported the interests of the FreedomWorks 57 percent in 2003-2004.

2003  On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 85 percent of the time.

2003  On the votes that the American Shareholders Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 55 percent of the time.

2003  Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 72 percent in 2003.

2002  On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 45 percent of the time.

2002  On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 60 percent of the time.

2002  Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 64 percent in 2002.

2001-2002  On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2001-2002, the Concord Coalition gave Senator McCain a rating of 95 percent.

2001-2002  Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 67 percent in 2001-2002.

2001  On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 55 percent of the time.

2001  Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 66 percent in 2001.

2001  On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 60 percent of the time.

2001  On the votes that the American Shareholders Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 50 percent of the time.

2000  On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 65 percent of the time.

2000  On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2000, the Concord Coalition gave Senator McCain a rating of 59 percent.

2000  On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator McCain voted their preferred position 47 percent of the time.

1999-2000  Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 94 percent in 1999-2000.

1999  Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Taxpayers Union 87 percent in 1999.

1999  On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 1999, the Concord Coalition gave Senator McCain a rating of 97 percent

McCain has pretty good numbers on these issues...

I care about the important issues he leaves the party on. Not all votes are equal. They aren't even close.  How much did he lose on repeatedly voting against the tax cuts? Or by sponsoring amendments with Daschle to gut them? He is not a supply sider. He is a Keynesian. He is very concerned about the "growing gap between the rich and the poor" and what the government is not doing to fix it. He sees businesses as Snidley Whiplash style robber barons he likes to call the "malefactors of wealth." He has zero cred on economics. No thanks. Not in a million years.

And McCain knows that raising taxes in our party is political Harry Carey...who do you think he's now supporting extending all of Bush's tax cuts?

is not being a Socialist.

Anybody who worries about "the gap between rich and poor" is treading on thin algae.  (As anyone knows, there is no longer any ice on lakes due to the failure of President Bush to sign the Kyoto protocols)

It's a sign of greed to look at someone else's success and call yourself a failure.  

Bush I agree with 98% of the time; McCain 70-75%

that was sarcasm... meaning there would be so many jobs that there would be no unemployment.

;-) ;-) nudge-nudge

Gads... sorry... :-D

We already have a solution to multiple IDs (and I'm well aware that even our trusted civil servants have been known to create a few fake ones).

In Texas (and at least some other states), every Drivers License requires a thumbprint, for example.  The same requirement was applied some years ago to people requesting welfare benefits.  The result?  30% of the recipients "disappeared" within a year ... and 50% within a few years more.