I wasn't impressed by the details I heard of the compromise on immigration either. In fact, I doubt that there is a good solution to this problem that stops short of virtually open borders. I can persuade myself that the moral high ground is the one with such virtual open borders, and everything else is far down on the moral scale.

The "guest worker" program, especially, is about as low morally as you can go. Without strong union protections for all workers, both citizen and non-citizen, such a "guest worker" program is nothing more than a gift to corporations to allow them to make more money without having to pay a living wage to their workers. If Mexican workers benefit from such a program it will be a short time before those workers are replaced by Haitian workers, for example. There are always groups of people willing to work for less money.

Much better than this "guest worker" program would be union friendly laws encouraging unionization of all jobs, to raise the pay and working conditions for those jobs so the out of work Americans will gladly take those jobs. Sure, some prices would go up, but I can bet those prices will go up in any case.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I agree it seems terrible. I have not read the bill yet, but it looks much worse than the compromise last year. this compromise appears to be larded with irrational and counterproductive measures. For example, to convert your z-visa into a green card the head of the household will have to return to their country of origin. What an incredibly unfair and pointless burden to put on the entire family. And what purpose, besides being punitive, would it serve (besides making a soon-to-be lawful permanent resident lose their job because they have to take a trip back to Central America)?

Unlike the "guest worker" program in last year's compromise, which allowed for a fairly straightforward path to citizenship, this program appears to give only a two-year visa and workers will have to return to their home country for one year to renew. Not only will this reserve army of labor who are weakly tied to the community serve to undercut wages, but they will also become tomorrow's undocumented immigrants. I see no reason why many will try and renew rather than remain undocumented and earning without having to attempt a risky border crossing. And why are we trying to prohibit chain migration and design our immigration system to exclusively benefit employers rather than immigrants who are already here?

Even though this new compromise addresses the current problem of undocumented immigrants and allows a path for them to gain residency, its many other problems seem to argue against passage.

Re: Why hand Bush a major political victor?

It won't be. A large part (probably a majority) of the GOP base absolutely hates this deal. It will alienate both Bush and all its other supporters (McCain etc.) from their own voters.
Granted, it does the same for Dems and labor, but there's a lot more passion on the rightwing about this, where anti-immigration is fueled by a barely concealed racism.

"Union protection" is comatose. Since the Reagan era Air Traffic Controllers debacle union participation has eroded by some 60%, yet another effective neocon dearth on fairness.

Not only do "guest workers" not have protection, but there is absolutely no redress of grievance, making many effectual indentured servants.

Congress needs to collectively muster up the intestinal fortitude to brace the public with the facts, and direct the US Border Patrol to start doing their job with a much higher level of efficacy than has been demonstrated(permitted?) in the past, and all 50 states need to work state-by-state to reinforce their local laws as well so as to be prohibitive toward illegal immigration, end of story. Sanctuary cities need to be taken before the courts for failing to adhere to federal law as it already stands, and those parties that've sought these sideways amnesties before need to be thoroughly looked at in terms of where their allegiances lie. Alberto, 14th amendment, Gonzales, is himself unfortunately a walking, talking conflict of interest on this issue, and if our legal system can successfully be bent around and twisted to the point where the law, and law enforcement that upholds the law, become ineffective, null and void, then it's no surprise that our cities and communities are set to become basically inundated with people from all over the world who basically just decide it's now legal for them to move in at will.

Global population growth is an important factor in all of this, in 1970 there were just barely 3 billion people in the world, now there's 6.6 billion and climbing, by 2050 it's estimated to be 9 billion. Congress, as a body, needs to really think this stuff out, and take some of the potential negative ramifications into account before just arbitrarily throwing the gates wide open and declaring basically, "it'll all come out in the wash" etc...

As regarding the H-1B visa issue, this article ran in our local paper yesterday (before news of the deal).

"North Carolina's leading engineering schools -- Duke, North Carolina A&T, N.C. State and UNC-Chapel Hill -- awarded 271 Ph.Ds in engineering and electrical engineering in 2006. Of those doctorates, 173 went to foreign students. That's 63 percent."

"Because of the arbitrarily low cap on the number of H-1B visas that can be allocated each year, tens of thousands of applications from foreign graduates of U.S. universities are denied. Similarly, untenable backlogs in green card processing are severely hampering the ability of employers to attract top-notch foreign talent."

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/574734.html

I suspect there are similar results in terms of the percentage of foreign-born graduates of engineering schools across the US. If that is the case, I just ask the question, aren't we (The US) almost forcing the out-sourcing of technology by forcing this talent out of the country?

ImpeachToday says 

Congress needs to collectively muster up the intestinal fortitude to brace the public with the facts, and direct the US Border Patrol to start doing their job with a much higher level of efficacy than has been demonstrated(permitted?) in the past, and all 50 states need to work state-by-state to reinforce their local laws as well so as to be prohibitive toward illegal immigration, end of story. Sanctuary cities need to be taken before the courts for failing to adhere to federal law as it already stands, and those parties that've sought these sideways amnesties before need to be thoroughly looked at in terms of where their allegiances lie.

Alternately, we could remember our own roots, reject xenophobia, and welcome immigrants here, recognizing that we've been smart enough as a nation to assimilate them before, and we're smart enough to assimilate them now.  And we're smart enough to do it in a way which is win/win for all concerned if we simply put our collective minds and wills to it.  I've put a few thoughts about this on my blog.  Clicking my name gets interested parties there.

aMike

What I find most offensive in this bill is the barely concealed disdain for those immigrants who are here now. The bill proposes to put those immigrants with education and employable skills ahead of those who possess little of either, which most who work out on the fields, in factories (fill in the blank) don't. I am speaking from experience. My parents are immigrants who were here illegally but were granted amnesty in the 1980s. Combined, they have eight years of education. Yet they managed to open a small business, they own their home, and have four children who all went to college and are leading productive lives. Isn't that the definition of the American dream? Isn't this bill going to deny that to the people who most want that for themselves and their children? I am not advocating open borders or even the amnesty granted under Reagan, but something that is fair for future generations. My parents capitalized on their chance, who's to say some other enterprising family won't?

"Visible distance behind and before us, is respectively our image of memory and hope."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Immigration issues are missunderstood by many for the wrong reason(s). Visas to what? A good example is the H-1B wrangle, when exposed becomes a canard. "H-1B holders cannot leave a job and go to work for another company." says Dino Perrotti, "The H-1B holders fear any sort of negative discourse with the employer, so they comply with any working conditions. This essentially makes them indentured servants." in American engineers vs. tech management--the H-1B issue.

The hi-tech industry seems to finagle first dibs on these visas, though they are not the only abusers. This situation is becoming so prevalent, yet under the radar that even physicians are falling victim, see here">http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/jun2003/ca20030610_2638_ca014.htm">here.

An excellent hub on this issue maintained by the programmersguild is hard to beat. Or google "H1B visas labor abuse indentured servants" for further examples of widespread muck.

Many assume this is just a threat on "our" American jobs, our livelyhood. While some see it as a corruption of our heritage others view it as a threat to our perceived domain as leader status. The imperative to co-exist AND thrive in a competitive world has lost it's priority.

I'm curious what peopple think about the following case:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065614/posts

"OAKLAND, California (AP) -- An immigration judge has ordered the deportation of a Russian piano teacher, despite pleas by her husband, a U.S. citizen, that she be allowed to stay with him and their 20-month-old son.

Yana Slobodova, 30, has been in an Oakland jail since meeting with immigration officials earlier this month, and was ordered back to Russia when the judge on Thursday denied her request for permanent residency."

Should Yana Slobodova be allowed back ?

Slobodova admits she misrepresented herself when she entered the United States in 1996, but her husband, a U.S. citizen, says she was swindled by unscrupulous immigration consultants and has been trying to cooperate with authorities.

I do not oppose immigration. When we get a handle on the illegal, we can address the legal.

That's like saying when we've wiped out disease, we can work on cures.

Best, Terry

In places like Japan an Western Europe, they see key industries like automotive production as being industries important to the national good. As such, these industries receive favorable policies, improve the companies competitiveness. Along with that, they're expected to act in the national interest.

By comparison many US industries see their loyalty only to share holders and tend to see business myopically for that reason.

In Japan, the good of the larger economy is in part a responsibility of companies like Toyota who rely on the workforce, the consumer base, and a healthy economy to support their global competitiveness.

In the USA, many companies see the nation as a resource to be strip mined for maximum profits. Even if their long term interests are aligned with the American economy, there is almost no bureaucratic mechanism to promote the national good in the private sector, and so the national good succumbs to the tragedy of the commons. then there is always the possibility to simply leave America entirely and move to India or China.

If Americans don't wise up, we're going to let trans national corporations squander our cultural inheritance and loot the national interest for their own profits, and then flee with it overseas and to gated communities of the hyper wealthy. Which is already happening.

That's not really correct. It's not "racism" but "economic nationalism" in the vast majority of people in the center. That is a huge difference.

Racists just dislike anyone of a different ethnicity/color.

Economic Nationalists support citizens first regardless of race, the notion being that people from a common background have a shared cultural understanding and follow the same rules and have the same quality of life expectations, and are thusly less likely to undercut each other in labor practices. which is perfectly reasonable and not hate-based in any way. Many Economic Nationalists, including Hispanic Americans, also support strong citizenship and a legal path to immigration in conjunction with border law enforcement to manage the economy and workforce.

A big part of the reason organized labor today is so unpopular with many laborers is because much of organized labor activists like Nathan Newman are open-borders, global worker solidarity, socialists. And since their goals are utterly unobtainable, they play right into the hands or corporate interests to maintain the status quo, and wind up hurting labor more than helping.

Re: It's not "racism" but "economic nationalism" in the vast majority of people in the center.

I was not talking about the center. I was talking about the GOP base, as in far-out rightwingers. Readion gwhat thes epeopel have to sday on teh subject it's obvious they don't give a damn about the economic arguments. It's all about 'culture" for them, which their polite way of saying "race".

My comment did not address immigration, it addressed illegal immigration. If we really want to stop it, that's how.

Like most working class Americans, my hair stands on end and I want to throw something when I hear the oft-repeated phrases "jobs Anericans won't do" or "jobs Americans don't want." There is no job Americans aren't already doing. It may be hard to find workers for hard, dangerous work at starvation wages - that is no justification for encouraging a flood of illegal immigration.

Building a huge fence and turning the border into a militarized zone would be unnnecessary if there wasn't a huge market for the workers. No affordable solution will be effective as long as that market exists. Until there are real and stringent penalties for employers, the market will continue to exist. If all employers are subject to the same penalties, competing against employers who hire illegals isn't an issue - that argument was also used to justify slavery.

A flood of migrants willing to work under any conditions, at any wage is detremental to not only the lowest paid native workers but several rungs up the ladder and other migrants as they bid wages down.

It is no accident that the stagnation of wages and decline of unions has coincided with the flood tide of illegal immigration. If we managed to bring this flood to a screeching halt, it would distort the market, creating a labor shortage that would seriously harm the economy and drive up wages rapidly to unaffordable levels for many businesses. Some of that would be desirable to counteract the distortion of the artificial labor surplus of recent years - but balance is what has been lacking and what we should strive for.

You don't need a "forge proof" card. It would be impossible, anyway.

What you need is a means for any employer to instantly check any social security number against the putative employee's name. SSA.GOV could do it on a web site, with the employer signing in using its tax ID number, and with every transaction logged to prevent abuse.

If the name and SSN match, the site returns a "Correct" message. The employer prints the web page, puts it in the employee's personnel jacket, and is protected from prosecution for hiring this person as an illegal. If they do not match, the site returns an "Incorrect" message, and the potential employee has to go to the SSA to sort out the problem before being employed; but if the SSA had my records screwed up, I'd surely want to know about it and correct it before I throw the SSA my contributions for 35 years!

--

"There's no telling what new harm Bush might do
if he ever gets back up off the mat.
You have to keep your knee on his windpipe
until the danger is past." -- Garry Trudeau

While the Social Security card and number doesn't do it, there's some pretty solid technology to control forging and maintain the integrity of a database. I'm thinking of digital signatures with a public key infrastructure.

While it may be possible to forge certain cards, the cost of forging a card with a verifiable digital signature, a fingerprint, etc., would be immense. I can't see it as feasible for the amount of money available to illegal immigrants.

Fingerprint readers, as authentication devices for PCs, are now of fairly high accuracy and fairly low cost. I wonder if a fingerprint, electronically coded into the card, could be fed into a fingerprint reader for verification. Actually checking fingerprints in the field would safeguard against what I think would be a greater danger than forging: theft of valid cards and identity theft.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Just apropos of databases and immigration, in about 1970, I worked on the original Immigration database system, replacing about 25 million index cards. I'm sure the matching algorithm has improved, but I thought I'd mention how it deals with spelling variations, which is still the way many name-oriented databases work.

There is an algorithm called Soundex which grabs the first letter of the surname, and then encodes the next three consonants into numbers, the numbers representing soundalikes like B, V, P. The most common name in the database, for example, was Rodriguez and its variants. Soundex will code Rodriguez, Rodriques, Rodrigues, and Rodriques into the same bucket.

Soundex was intended to be sensitive (not give false negatives) rather than selective (not give false positives). A sensitive test is expected to have additional confirmation, often human review. If the Soundex, date of birth, and several other demographics matched, that would be considered a high-probability match even if the exact surname spelling was different.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

If the left makes common cause with the middle for economic nationalism, legal immigration combined with border controls, workplace enforcement, and pro-labor immigration policy, then racists on the far right become irrelevant. That's the point.