Nice reframe turning illegal aliens into immigrants. Too bad its a outright lie and you ought to know better than that esquire.
Shame on you.

And this isn't a civil rights moment either. Though this is just one of the sleazy frames the Democrats and liberals decided to go with when they made this their primary '06 election issue. Not the war in Iraq, not off-shoring of American jobs, not health care, not our exploding twin deficits, but giving citizenship to upwards of 20 million illegals.

Its too bad Nathan, because if you and your ilk fought for the working class like you are doing now for the illegals the GOP would be out of power.

Maybe one day the Democrats will again be the party of the working class rather than a home for cosmopolitan one-worlder types who devalue and mock citizenship and see soverignty and secure borders as bad things to be done away with.

 "...giving citizenship to upwards of 20 million illegals."

 I'll see your 20 million and raise  you to 30 million.  Good grief!  We don't know who the illegals are or where they are, but people feel a need to constantly refer to an ever increasing number as if there were some basis for it.  For all we know the correct number is ten thousand.

This is a red herring issue, designed to distract us from the real issues that face us.  Just as the Democrats in Congress were too cowed to speak up against the invasion of Iraq, they are equally cowed and afraid to speak up against this ridiculous "issue".  Just as Iraq did not participate in 9/11, neither did Mexico.  I know of no terrorists that are Mexican illegals.  In fact, I doubt that real terrorists could remain hidden well enough to cross the Mexican/American border.  Terrorism is not the issue here, at all.

If there is an issue here, it is that unscrupulous businessmen are luring Mexican illegals in order to exploit them so the business can make more money.  That is an easily solved problem, but the Republicans will never even make an effort.  First an increased minimum wage would be needed, then enforcement of that minimum would be needed.  Neither has the slightest chance of passing a GOP Congress.

Please, let's stop doing the Republican's work for them. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I do support having a process to people who have been here for > 10 years legal.
But, people who come from more distant lands are going to be disadvantaged if major attention is not directed to border security. One sticky issue here is going to be that without a fence or other barrier, border defense will be based on penalizing employers who employ undocumented workers.
Undocumented worker
Concerns of profiling will surely arise when raids are done on restaurants etc with a Mexican-appearing staff, for example.
Second, how will people prove how long they have been in the country?
Third for the period of time that it takes for these workers to become citizens, are we willing to have a low wage workforce that cannot use the ballot to improve their
situation.
Their are many complex issues that are worthy of careful debate before creating a bill

"The cold and hard but measurable fact is that we have 12 million or so illegals.."

 We have been told by the government that they don't know who the illegals are, or where they are, so they can't possibly know how many there are.  The 12 million figure is just being bandied about because it sounds so big.  The true number may turn out to be 10,000.

I hope people are noticing how effective this has been in keeping the bad news in Iraq off the front page, keeping the news about Bush being the leaker of classified documents off the front page, keeping the failure to address the New Orleans problem off the front page, and establishing a scapegoat group that can't vote this year.

If we really are concerned about this, lets raise the minimum wage, enforce it, and penalize the businesses that recruit illegals.  That will make the "jobs Americans won't do" into jobs the Americans will want, and the demand for cheap labor will be greatly reduced.  Thus, illegal immigration will be reduced.  Isn't that the goal? 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I think rather that many on the left who oppose immigration are probably speaking for the 91 percent of Americans in the private sector who are not unionized, the very ones who are about to bear the brunt of the effects of yet more illegal immigration.

One of the big problems that we are going to have to address consider is whether we as consumers are willing to pay higher prices for goods to cover the increased minimum wage.

You're absolutely right. In order to do that, we need to have a choice. Don Imus and Erica Jong knew that they had hired illegal nannies, but too many Americans don't know who is picking our produce or bussing our tables. We are told that in general, these workers are illegal, but there is no certifiable proof that the workers at your favorite restaurant would fall into that category, and you have no way of verifying it yourself.

What we need is to force employers to advertise whether they use legal or illegal labor and give the customer a real choice. Since Congress likely wouln't want to stab their meal ticket in the back, it would probably have to be done through state legislatures or ballot initiatives.

Corvid

Look at the numbers. Median household incomes haven't risen in decades even though more and more households depend on 2 or more jobs to provide the income that one used to provide. The presence of millions of illegals and low wages at the bottom of the scale (and in the middle--look at the construction industry) are one big factor pulling down all wages, both white-collar and blue-collar. The Borjas-Katz study noted an overall but minuscule gain of 1 percent in incomes across the economy from heavy immigration, but most of the gains accrue to the top, leaving the broad middle segment with incomes that, over time, are suppressed. There are many other factors--outsourcing and offshoring--and they all have an outsized effect in the labor market, which is very inelastic and tightly woven. In other words, we're all connected, whether we like it or not, and when people at the bottom are hurt, so is everyone else. That is, except for the executive class.

wilder has a point.

that point seems to be that the article points out that many rank and file African-Americans are not necessarily in step with the fine principles enunciated by the leadership of the NAACP, which Nathan mentioned.

Another example - remember the brouhaha over the rebuilding from Katrina where they were bringing in people from Mexico to work on the rebuilding projects while there were many black New Orleanians who both needed jobs and would have liked nothing better than rebuilding their own city?

Unfortunately, the answers lie neither in unrestricted immigration, nor in draconian crackdowns on the immigrants. And the economic dimension of the problem must not be obscured by the racial dimension. Neither cheerleading the demonstrations nor building walls is going to provide a solution.

Raise taxes on all businesses and employers. (We need defecit reduction). Then rebate the taxes for those employers who can prove that all their employers are here legally. Employers will say "too bureaucratic." Cry me a river. Look where the present regime has gotten us.

No need for criminal penalties which are not working anyway.

So it's got to be frustrating that organizations representing blacks and unions are refusing to play their parts and scapegoat the immigrants.

It is no such thing.  Organizations like the NAACP have their own agenda and priorities, one of which is to enlist Hispanics to support the things they really care about, such as enforcement of civil rights laws, where black and Hispanic interests coincide.  So it's totally unsurprising that black leaders would not want to alienate Hispanics over this issue.  And yet on this issue, as on many others, the views of the black "leadership" don't coincide with the people they purport to represent.  I'm quite certain that polls of blacks in general would reveal a desire to control illegal immigation, just as whites want.

I feel that this debate has gotten very distorted because the two issues on the table - what to do about illegal immigrants here, and what to do to control the borders - keep getting mixed up.  Wanting to control the borders means you want to reduce illegal immigration.  Full stop.

• It doesn't mean you endorse the idea of criminalization. 
• It doesn't mean you want to halt all immigration
• It doesn't mean you are "scapegoating" immigrants.
• It doesn't make you a xenophobe
• It doesn't mean you're a member of the "far right" (as I heard Juan Williams on NPR this morning describe it)

It's unclear just what people like Nathan Newman actually want.  Is the whole idea of border sovreignty wrong?  Should we go back to the period of open immigration, such as what we saw 100 years ago?  I suspect that the answer is no.  But if the answer is no, then what level of illegal immigration is OK?

Nathan:

I think you're setting up a straw man here, as the comments by Wilder (9:46) and Brad the Dad suggest.

The dynamics of discussion on this issue remind me in some ways of the reactions some supporters of both affirmative action and school busing had to opponents or critics. Instead of trying to understand the concerns honestly by putting themselves in the shoes of some of the critics they instead accused them of racism.

Let me ask you a question about the rallies: what do you believe are the points of agreement among those rallying on what they are for, specifically?

I'll start by saying they want all people to be treated humanely and with dignity and respect. That gets us only so far. I'll also stipulate that most of them probably believe that making someone who provides health services to an illegal immigrant a felon is not a good way to go. Ok so far. And that most probably want guest serf status done away with so that the folks who are here illegally can be put on a path towards full citizenship. That may end up being the best option.

Beyond that, what do they think should be done about the flow of illegal immigrants into the country? Nothing?

We know 80% of the public wants more effective measures to reduce dramatically, if not eliminate, illegal immigration. Are 80% of Americans racists and xenophobes? What about Latinos who are among that 80%?

I actually believe Nathan Newman is economically illiterate and politically naive enough to believe his claptrap about repealing the laws of supply and demand.  I think he thinks that illegal immigrants are natural fodder for union organizers - his main -concern - and that the minimum wage can be extended to everyone. 

A more ridiculous, incoherent set of arguments would be hard to find.

My two cents worth at reduced price. [Because it is old news]

As a country we invite the illegal immigrants to come here. We make it possible and when they get here we hire them and exploit them as cheap labor at no risk to ourselves. We rent them houses, sell to them, and accept them into our communities to varying degrees. Sometimes they become our friends, sometimes their children marry our children. They may be criminals in the sense that they have broken arbitrary laws, but they are not criminals in a moral sense just because they accepted our invitation to come here and rise out of poverty and help their families back home. To keep them here as a permanent, legally defined, underclass is wrong. To uproot them and rip apart families is wrong. Open borders are, in my opinion, also unwise and unworkable.

If the above is accepted, then it is fairly easy to outline what we must do. The sequence of actions is important. First, prioritize the continued upgrading of border security. Second, give aliens who are here legal status and access to the same social services as citizens and give them the same rights and obligations within the labor market. After that, the path towards citizenship could be laid out. Along with this, a reasonable and accurate method must be established to identify the legality of aliens. When this has been done, strong penalties must be put on anyone who hires an illegal alien. That would stop exploitation and also give a strong disincentive to making a hard and dangerous crossing into this country.

Well, I am pro-union. I believe that having a strong union presence would benefit our country at this point, so long as union goals are oriented to ensuring that workers' fortunes roughly rise and fall with productivity and keeping CEO compensation reasonable. CEO compensation is determined not by some "free market" rewarding meritorious performance but by the political power CEOs have within corporations and in our political system. There is simply no way I can see of this happening if those who stand to gain from basic fairness in compensation are all but barred by the labor laws from being able to organize without getting themselves fired for their efforts. Union busting under the current laws is a refined art. Really, our situation in this regard befits some banana republic.

I also believe unions are correct to see opportunity in reaching out to recent immigrants who are here legally and may want to stay.

But I don't believe that obviates the need to face up to the part of this issue that has to do with border security and whether the status quo is acceptable when it comes to the flow of illegal immigrants into the country. To the extent unions are aiding and abetting illegal immigrants they are aiding and abetting people who are breaking the law, no matter how much they may appeal to our sympathies.

Under the status quo I don't see how they can know who is legal and who is not, which is one reason why I would like to see serious investigation into the possibilities, problems and issues that would be entailed with requiring people to carry on their persons an electronic ID card.

We expect people driving a car to carry a license on their person and no one seems to be too worked up about that. Why not electronically encode citizenship status on driver's licenses?

We may well need a wall, or rows of fences, along with increased border patrol security. Personally I hate the symbolism that goes with that but we might need to do it anyway.

There is no possibility that I can see of law enforcement cracking down on employers absent public financing of political campaigns at both the national and pertinent state levels.

If employees need to have electronic ID cards on them then non-corrupt law enforcement authorities have a way to distinguish between those who are here legally and those who aren't--and therefore, also, a practical way to determine if employers have hired people who are here illegally. Requiring people to carry the ID cards also gives employers a feasible, humane way of determining if someone is here legally or not.

For those opposed to electronic ID cards but who want the issue dealt with, what would your alternative be for enabling law enforcement authorities to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants?

I would agree that to believe downward pressure on low-end wages can be mitigated so long as there is an endless supply of cheap labor with no rights and no power entering the country makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I'm not trivializing the other side, but am honestly pissed off that so many folks choose to speak on behalf of black people, when their elected representatives and organizational leaders are saying something quite different.

Of course, poor blacks are uneasy about immigration and conflicts exist.

I don't underplay the economic implications-- in fact, I think legalization is a requirement for ending the undermining of labor rights for all workers. The reason unions, the NAACP, and a range of other groups have come out in support of strong protection of immigrant rights is not out of some one world humanitarism but out of hard understanding that their own constituents will ultimately benefit by eliminating a two-tier labor system in our economy.

Immigrant rights are just good for the immigrant laborers but are good for other workers as well, because that means employers won't have an easily exploitable workforce to take advantage of. And the reason such groups don't see enforcement as the solution is that most enforcement measures are more likely to lead to discrimination and divisions in the workforce -- again, replicating exactly the divisions that employers take advantage of to impose lower wages and bust unions.

The history of attacks on new immigrants in the US has been a recurrent theme since the early 19th century. It's always been a political wedge issue used by nativist elites to turn one group of workers against another.

And it works because some honest folks get sucked into debating which group of workers should be punished to benefit some other group of workers -- instead of debating how to restrict corporate power and wealth so that all of those workers could benefit.

There is plenty of wealth and human needs to employ anyone needing work in our country. Trying to deny jobs to immigrants and redistribute wealth between impoverished groups as the solution to economic inequality is a bizarre approach when the obvious answer is to address economic inequality between the wealthy and the impoverished directly.

This post confuses "humane defense of immigrant rights" with supporting illegal immigration.

If you want to be "humane", stop illegal immigration. It leads to all manner of "non-humane" problems, such as worker abuse, greater chance of workplace deaths, border deaths, etc. And, it leads to corruption in the U.S. and encourages further corruption in Mexico. If you want to look humane to those who aren't that familiar with this issue, support illegal immigration. If you want to actually be humane, support stopping illegal immigration.

Its too bad Nathan, because if you and your ilk fought for the working class like you are doing now for the illegals the GOP would be out of power.

If Kerry had come out against illegal immigration, he would have won Ohio and Arizona, and he'd be president today.

If you want to see where the NAACP stands, look at who they supported to do the rebuilding work in New Orleans. Did they support getting the mainly underclass residents of the lower Ninth Ward back to work doing things like putting on blue tarps? No, the NAACP indirectly but effectively supported allowing the feds to indirectly hire illegal aliens from Mexico to do the work. Meanwhile, the feds were paying American citizens to vegetate in hotel rooms and FEMA trailers. And, don't forget Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's trips to Mexico. Perhaps the issue here is that those groups that claim to represent various people have lost their way.