As long as employers are allowed to hire illegals without significant penalty, any legislation is a waste of time, a kiss-up to donor interest groups on all sides of the issue; excepting, of course, the American worker.

Legislation must require heavy fines and serious terms of imprisonment of employers (including the officers of corporations) who hire illegal aliens, and must impose the corporate death penalty on repeat offenders.

No legislation (or legislator who proffers legislation) that omits such measures deserves any respect.

--

"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

Unfortunately, existing statutory fines are insignificant (especially compared with the labor cost savings resulting from hiring illegals), and corporations consider them a cost of doing business.

That's why meaningful legislation must include mandatory prison time and the corporate death penalty for repeat offenders.

--

"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

CommonDreamer,

I certainly don't mean to offend Sen. Kennedy or any of the other good progressives who are working hard to put together a decent immigration bill. But I think the principles at stake over the guest worker provisions that have emerged, at least to this point, are so fundamental that they trump what would be gained from compromising -- even though a lot would be gained as you say.

The guest worker provisions would be inhumane acts of commission. You write, "Under a guest worker program, wouldn't they have to be paid minimum wage, worker compensation, etc.? Wouldn't they have legal recourse if abused or unfairly dismissed, whereas illegal residents have no recourse?" and the answer, at least in practice and possibly in the actual details that haven't yet been fully released, is almost certainly no. Guest workers would have negligible leverage or access to legal representation, much as current undocumented workers don't. The guest worker program would replace one travesty with another, and that, to me anyway, is always a bad idea.

My rule of thumb is that if compromising makes you want to throw up, go with you gut and don't do it. --Greg

A. Lighten up, dude.

B. The two links in my post about the history of guest worker programs here and abroad convey the extent to which they have been complete failures any way you want to look at them, including morally. Repeating that history makes absolutely no sense, at least as far as I'm concerned.

--Greg

France and Germany both have guest worker programs. The result seems to be a sizable population of, in their case, largely Muslims who are unlikely ever to be citizens and are restless. Why do we want to follow such a model?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Well, I'll certainly offend Senator Ted Kennedy, the man who supported 'No Child Left Behind' and seemed all too ready to compromise and submit to Bush all too often.

And if you're an illegal immigrant now and you don't take the poor pay and working conditions or even the beating your employer dishes out, he'll report you to INS and you're out of the country. So at the least, I don't see how it makes things worse.

You're right, this still gives the employer too much power. An employee can't complain about conditions without risking not just the loss of a job but the loss of residency. I'm hoping there's provision in this whereby a person can stick around for a time to try to find another employer. What's more, any time an employer dismisses a guest worker before their time is up, they should be required to explain why, the individual should be given the opportunity to record his explanation of events and the employer should be required to pay for that person to return home if they are unable to find another employer.

Additionally, all employees should be given a hand out or training by the government explaining their rights on entry.

Amusing.

I wasn't asking the question rhetorically. I'm serious. One could argue -- and I know some do -- that except for Native Americans we're all immigrants and have no greater claim on this land than anyone else. Therefore we really don't have the right to deny access to others, particularly hard working folk who need jobs.

What I'm asking is whether this is the "liberal" position.

Whether immigrants are better or worse than those who live here today is not really the issue as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure most who come here are good people.

The question for me is whether immigration is a good thing for America and if not, then how and to what extent to balance that against the desire and perhaps need of people to come here.

Taken on its own, from the links you provide, it would appear that guest worker programs have a bad history.
But the question is whether that history is a worse one than the history of illegal immigration.

All the examples cited in these articles you link to are examples of programs created at the behest of industry to add laborers and then corrupted by those industries by sticking their cronies in government. It's not clear to me that that's the case here. Rather an attempt is being made to give some kind of legal status to the millions of workers being imported into the country anyway.

All in all, I'm inclined to agree that it would be better to avoid such a program, but it seems to me it would be better than a plan that simply seeks to bar people from coming here and thus continues the status quo of illegal immigration.

You fault the existing proposal because it does not provide "a process by which the proposed 400,000 temporary guest workers per year could ultimately gain citizenship."

Why don't you outline for us the parameters of an acceptable guest worker program, if one exists that does not lead to citizenship?

And if no guest worker plan is possible without a path to citizenship, please explain why, with something other than selective references to historical experience whose mistakes, your evident prejudices notwithstanding, are not cosmically ordained to be repeated.

BTW, "Lighten up, dude" doesn't cut it here.

Dear "Wigmar1",

With all due respect, I have been contributing to tpmcafe since its inception and have tried to respond constructively to comments, which I know some front-pagers tend to ignore. So when I was engaging with CommonDreams about his (or her) completely legitimate points and he (or she) wrote
a response in a tone that was somewhat derisive, I responded to the point while noting his (or her) escalation of hostility.

Any number of immigration advocacy groups have put forward ideas for enabling future trial-basis immigrant workers to gain citizenship. If you think my references to past guest worker programs are selective, please provide just one example of a successful --morally and practically--guest worker program.

BTW, I know what cuts it here. Your response doesn't. --Greg

Well taken, CommonDreamer. It's definitely a tough call. I guess I have a very strong personal tendency to recoil at repeating mistakes, especially ones that involve moral issues. And that repeating those mistakes would exacerbate the public's hostility toward government, further advancing the agenda of movement conservatism. But, yes, the status quo is bad and is perpetuating all kinds of misery. --Greg

Greg--
I can't say how much I appreciate the fact that, rather than simply offering personal opinion, you put the problem--and supposed solution--in a historical context.
Okay, admittedly, I agree with you, so I'm inclined to like your method. You're offering evidence: In the past, this didn't work, why would it work now?
It seems to me that those you disagree with you need to adress that question.

Re: All we need is an Internet-searchable database of Social Security numbers.

Now there's an idea! Let's give every ID thief an easy way to rip people off!
Moroever, there's a non-trivial number of errors in Social Security's database. Sometimes this is the fault of people not reporting name changes (after marriage, etc.) But sometimes it's not. Do you think American citizens should be denied the right to work because of some bureaucrat's mistake? That's far worse a crime than any amount of illegal immigration!

Thanks, Maggie. By the way, we met like maybe 20 plus years ago when I was working at Money magazine and you were working on a freelance piece there. I'm glad we're intersecting again! And I'm a huge fan of your health care book, not incidentally --Greg

The IRS and the rest of US Gov seem to think SS #s are reliable.

I think this ID issue is as much of a sideshow as it is for voting. Prove me wrong if you can, but I bet the majority of illegal hires are in full knowledge of the employer.

Let's not rule out employment-based enforcement until we try it. Consider that simple ICE presence scares away illegals, like beat cops or patrol cars. 100% compliance is not necessary, either. Combine more comprehensive ICE supervision with more thorough wage-standard enforcement and employers will want more capable workers (native) to be worth the higher wage.

What really gets to me is expecting a foreigner to care more about our local laws than his family. Don't expect him to forgo opportunity. But if there are no jobs, he'll go home and not come back.

So the employer enters the SSN and the name given by the putative employee, and the SSA returns "valid" or "invalid" codes, so no name is returned for an SSN.

The point is that the "Real ID" is unnecessary BS, if what you are interested in is determining whether or not someone is legal to employ.

--

"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

Moreover, if the SSA has a bogus entry for your SSN, wouldn't you prefer to know about it BEFORE the time comes for you to claim your benefits, rather than after you have poured 20 years of contributions into your account? Wpuldn't you prefer to have the opportunity to straighten it out as soon as possible?

This sort of a [re-employment check would give legitimate putative employees the opportunity to straighten out any problems with their SSNs as quickly as possible. I can see no reasonable argument against it.

--

"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

Oh please. Get over yourself already.

The author argues that support for this bill is not progressive or liberal. I suggested that it sounded like he was saying that a path to citizenship for anyone who wanted it was the only position he would support.

You seemed to say -- in a roundabout way -- that that position is the one you consider to be the liberal position.

It's not a straw man if it's what you actually believe, and you've said nothing to indicate that it's not what you believe. Nor have you offered any "discussion of nuanced immigration policy in a larger context of American social and economic life."

Instead you've offered invective and insult and this ridiculous anti-American rant about how we don't deserve what we've got.

Well bull! I have a claim on this country because my ancestors built it, and yes, I have contributed to it -- at least as much as you have I'll bet. Maybe had Europeans not come, one of the tribes would have created a nation like this that people would all be clamoring to join as citizens. Certainly, the five tribes of the Iroquis were on their way to unifying large sections through conquest when my ancestors arrived.

Regardless, it's hard to argue that this country's people haven't gotten something right to have built such a prosperous nation. Besides that, if someone else like the Iroquis had built it, you would no doubt today be bashing the Iroquis for having stolen everyone else's land, and how dare their descendents think they have a claim on it now.

In truth, one could argue that no one has an exclusive claim on any land anywhere, but this argument is fairly divorced from our reality.

Even if the only claim that we have is that we're here, so what. That's enough. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. We possess this land now. We have the right to decide who will enter it so long as we retain possession.

Whether it's a good idea to restrict entry or not is another question. We have no obligation to share this nation's bounty with others, although I generally favor doing so.

My own primary concern is threefold: First, that those who come to this country be willing to accept the principles on which it is based -- and yes, I think that should apply to people who are born here as well. Too many Americans seem to understand little about the ideals on which this country was based. The South, in particular, has an authoritarian tendency that goes back to slavery.

And second, that we keep people whose aim is to blow us up, out. I don't see how we do that if we don't know who's coming in the country, which is the case when we have massive illegal immigration.

And third that those who come here have legal rights on par with the rest of Americans that are enforced so that we don't have people being abused and exploited.

People already here objected vehemently to the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, and the Jews, IIRC.

Mr. Anrig says:

Here are three basic traits that distinguish progressives from movement conservatives: our moral values derive from a fundamental belief that basic human rights should be respected for all individuals; if a public policy has failed over and over in the past, we learn from the experience and don’t repeat the same mistake; and we consider the economic well-being of average workers to be far more important than the wish list of corporate lobbyists.

I'd like to add a fourth:  our common humanity trumps the differences between ourselves and others around the world.  We may honor this in the breech more often than in the fact, but it needs to be part of our moral compass.  It informs our policy regarding refugees from persecution (again, too often in the breech).

Another commenter asked about whether we should support open borders?  I'm thinking this is an idea which needs to be explored seriously.  I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, but who knows?  When labor is as free to move around as capital is, perhaps the playing field will be leveled.  The European Community has moved farther in this direction than most Americans are aware.  Who would have thought this possible a generation or so ago?

The more than 600 000 people who live in one EU country and work in another have to cope with different national practices and legal systems. They may come across administrative, legal or fiscal obstacles to mobility on a daily basis.

EURES advisers in these areas provide specific advice and guidance on the rights and obligations of workers living in one country and working in another.

And I thought commuting from Rhode Island to Massachusetts might be a hassle.  An international labor force, protected by international unions and a common protocol enforcing human rights.  Why not? 

aMike

Wally: make me.

You seemed to say -- in a roundabout way -- that that position is the one you consider to be the liberal position.

I seemed to say no such thing. I said nothing of that sort. I expressed no such view at all. And I consider it dishonest that you make such a suggestion.

The nature of a straw man is that instead of dealing with what your opponent actually says, you manipulate and mischaracterize their statement in an effort to attribute an untenable position to them. A 'straw man' which falls over with a push.

I don't see how you can choose to distort and manipulate and misrepresent the views of those who disagree with you, and not acknowledge that you're engaging in 'straw-manship.'

But truthfully, I don't worry about it too much. As I've said, I don't think that I should take you very seriously.

"So let's be honest. The problem is too many blacks, too many hispanics, too many hindu and pakistani"

The US immigration policy is a disaster.
On one hand , only best educated and brightest Asians (including Indians and Pakistani) are allowed to immigrate to US, on another hand only least educated Mexican are able to get to US.
Therefore, not only the gap between rich and poor is growing , but Rich are Asians and some Whites, while Poor are mostly Hispanics and American Blacks.
This gap is only growing for their kids.

There is nothing good can come out of this.

Taken on its own, from the links you provide, it would appear that guest worker programs have a bad history. But the question is whether that history is a worse one than the history of illegal immigration.

Yes.

Thank you for asking.

Best, Terry

Whine whine whine. You can't be bothered to read posts, much easier to just project onto them and carry on your one sided monologue. It's the sound of one hand clapping, dude.

America is a nation of immigrants from day one, and yet, you can't see past your own arbitrary notions of entitlement.

America is the greatest country in the world, and yet it doesn't occur to you that your citizenship carries any sort of obligation, merely endless entitlements.

How is it that you deserve to be an American? Do you work harder than immigrants? Do you start businesses? Do you contribute more? Maybe, maybe not. You certainly don't seem to approach any problem on more than a superficial level.

Take immigration issues for instance. You ignore the racist subtexts of the issue, your choice I suppose.

But you also ignore a lot of other stuff. The influx from Mexico includes a lot of economic refugees from the deterioration of Mexico under NAFTA. How much of the problem stems from American trade and economic policies towards Mexico? Perhaps thats a bigger picture than you'd like to imagine.

How about this: The problem isn't illegal immigration, but toleration and encouragement of businesses and persons hiring illegal immigrants. It's like drugs, they exist because the market is there. Wal-Mart hires illegals, for gods sakes. If you shop at Wal-Mart you're supporting illegal immigration.

The complaint is that illegal immigrants or job outsourcing depresses American's wages. This is true. But this isn't the immigrants or the outsourced choice. They've be happy to work for full rate American wages. But that's not the choice that American businesses or employers are making. They choose to pay cut-rate wages and depress American wages. They choose to take jobs away from Americans and ship people in from across the border or ship those jobs out.

You simplistically reduce everything to the ultramoronic proposition "Does America have the right to control its own borders." As if you're saying something profound and defining. I can barely express the contempt such a fatuous position deserves.

Of course America has the right to control its own borders that is exactly what it is doing. Six million illegal immigrants don't just show up unless a welcome matt is extended for them, and those welcome matts don't get extended without the tolerance and consent of American polity.

Seriously. What's the real number of illegals? Six million? Ten million? Fifteen million? At best its no more than a tiny fraction of the American population.

Who is hiring these illegals? A lot of single businesses and entrepreneurs hire multiple illegals, except for domestics, its not one on one. So the pool of employers for illegals is smaller than the number of illegals themselves. Call them two to five million.

Two to five million is a pretty insignificant fraction of the American population, in voting terms. If their sort of practice was really unacceptable, well, they wouldn't be able to do much.

But in fact it is acceptable, it is tolerated. It is even encouraged. And it is not debated.

Instead of looking at the real issue, we have this idiotic dog and pony show, animated by hidden racism, about whatever slogan is popular.

America could deal with the problem effectively, if it wanted to. America clearly chooses not to deal with the problem.

Instead, of reasoned discussion and actual policy, there's mindless jingoism.

Yes, ignore those guys chopping holes in the bottom of the boat, its more important to make stupid pronouncements as to whether America has the right to control its own borders and refuse water permission to enter the boat.

So what does the Guest Worker program amount to? Well, here's the thing: If you ended up giving illegals actual rights, then they might make unreasonable labour demands like fair wages or working conditions. That would be bad for business. We wouldn't be importing these people if we were interested in paying fair wages in the first place.

So, the point of the Guest Worker program is to create a legal equivalent of slave labour or indentured labour. Bad wages, no rights, but everyone gets a card so they can be thrown out at whim. I can see how it would be so attractive to illegals.

Whether it 'succeeds' or not, is going to have a great deal to do with whether the people currently employing illegals will see more advantage (ie, more control over the employees, more onerous working conditions, fewer remedies for the employee, poorer wages, etc.) than the current system.

All of this goes over your head, because your real problem is all about brown skinned people with funny accents.

You understand now why I don't take you seriously?

This is exactly why unions are necessary. Someone will always be willing to do your job for less money, or fewer benefits, or poorer working conditions. It is human nature to be willing to work for something instead of starving on nothing. It makes little difference in this whether the worker is an immigrant, legal or not, or an American citizen.

For far too long our governmental and business school tilt has been towards increasing corporate or other business profits, increasing stock prices, and worrying about only the current bottom line and not the future. Lost in this is the real effect on working people, who cannot buy the products of industry unless they can earn a good wage. Thus we now have a stagnant economy with a rising stock market, and extremely well paid business executives. The future will be grim if we continue on this road.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I got a "dejas vus allover again" seeing this point you and others are ultimately getting at in discussion later in this thread, one which may actually answer your question as to "what is the progressive viewpoint?"

See
Josh Marshall, "Robust Citizenship,"
TPMCafe August 18, 2005:

Part of me hesitates to delve into this debate, which already seems to be generating at least as much heat as light. But I have to disagree with Nathan Newman's post today on immigration policy and the color line.

Nathan seems to be arguing not only for an open immigration policy but that the very idea of citizenship is tainted, and that it is little more than a tool of racial exclusion, certaily not a concept progressives can have any truck with.

I believe this is a profoundly misguided vision....

There were a lot more far "lefties" as vocal members at the time, who were supportive of Nathan's nearly "no borders, no nation states" view and I recall some comments were quite heated before Josh jumped in. At the time, Josh was not known to jump into any of the political discussions, but this one point really seemed to bother him, as evidenced by his use of "profoundly misguided," as if he could not let Nathan's opinion stand unchallenged, that he did not want this view sitting as unchallenged as representative of TPM's view.

It was clear to me then, and nothing has changed, that there are clear and strong opposing opinions on this between all people left of center. Just as there are clear and strong opposing opinions on this between all people right of center!

This issue simply does not break along party lines nor left/right lines. It's because it carries a lot of extra baggage, it's got a lot of big picture things that go along with it. Part of the problem is that it brings up the stresses of globalization and whether you think nation states and individual geographically local cultures are in the future of the human race or not.

You can also see marked divisions in groups like labor. You can also see things like a Guiliani and more left-leaning Catholic churches as strong supporters of immigration, and socialist-leaning union organizers joining up with protectionists and border vigilance.

This is no longer the simple world of every "progressive" or "liberal" supporting Cesar Chavez's organization. Lots of other issues are dragged in nowadays when you start talking protecting nation states (not the least of which is the argument over the legitmacy of Israel, just to make my point strongly.)

In any case, it is clear to me that there is several strong opposing "liberal" or "progressive" views on this, just as there is no ONE "conservative" view on it Pat Buchanan wants to get out the pitchforks, while Mr. CEO wants to let 'em all in to work. Meanwhile Lou Dobbs, once upon a time not so very conservative, but very pro-business, has made a populist crusade out of "protecting our borders," which puts him in league with a bunch of wannabee cowboy yahoos volunteering to patrol the border and against all those CEO's he used to chum around with. Then I am sure you still have a big "do as I say not as I do" nanny (or gardener or maid) problem among those who many would place in the class of "liberal elite"....heck, I'm one of the latter sometimes...when an union plumber is an untouchable celeb to any average NYC resident (doesn't return calls, much less sneer at your clogged sink,) who you gonna call but that illegal from the Carribean?....

I suggest that the US government does not especially think SS#s are reliable, but that information is largely suppressed due to the immense cost of changing a pre-computer but utterly embedded technique. For example, see the 1973 report, Records, Computers, and the Rights of Citizens: Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee
on Automated Personal Data Systems, done for the then-Department of HEW, now HHS. The link discusses deficiencies in the SSN that were of concern in the seventies, and are now of considerably greater risk due to new techniques available to miscreants.

I have always been amused by one experience with employment-based enforcement, around 1990. When I went to work for a new, Canadian-owned company, the US rule was that a corporate officer had to certify one's right to work in the US. Later, the US general manager was made a corporate VP, but we were both amused, at the time, that a Canadian had to certify my right to work in the US.

Does someone need to call 911 for Valdron? I'm concerned he may be laughing too hard to breathe.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Given the trend to employ contractors (as individuals), how can unionization apply? Would the hiring organization be required to go through a union hall, whether or not specialized skills are involved?

Don't get me wrong; discussions here, once it was realized I was asking serious questions but relevant to industries such as IT and medicine, have made me more sympathetic to what I'll call skilled/professional unions. The CWA, in particular, has some good ideas. Nevertheless, I can't see how I could have used union membership in the last five years or so, where I was a direct contractor -- and without much leverage.

Do understand that I continue to support national borders. I see no trend yet for a supranational government that I would trust more than the catastrophic one I see in place in the US. At most, I see gradual improvement in regional compacts such as the EU, and some evolution of NAFTA. With any regional compact, there has to be a clear approach, and the EU is working on such, to bring the more have-not nations to a base level.

The EU has the resources to do that, and Canada and the US probably can do that for Mexico, and perhaps somewhat farther south. Costa Rica seems to have such a surfeit of sanity that I'd love to be closely allied with it. :-)

When it comes to a region like ECOWAS in West Africa, the resource and basic standard of life become more complex.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Does he assume reptilian or mammalian ancestry? I was merely wondering which class would be more offended.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Second, I take it you cannot imagine a guest worker program moral enough that not leading to citizenship would be acceptable to you. I further take it that you conclude this merely by imbibing the received wisdom on other "failed" guest worker programs, without considering what might be the legal status of the guests workers or the legal sanctions to be applied against people who abuse them under a program to be invented today.

Well, yeah, it's logically possible that there is a guest worker program that is morally acceptable/meets progressive principles, etc.  The question is: do you really think that a proposal that has bipartisan support in Congress in 2007 will be such a program?

Why would are experience be similar?  After all, France and Germany have many former colonies with sizable Muslim populations.  The U.S., too, has a better record of assimilating immigrants, and in particular Muslim immigrants.

Thinking of it in terms of the rationale behind a guest worker program (which I strongly oppose), wouldn't you want your guest workers to be restless and unassimilated?  After all, the idea is that they will be leaving shortly. 

These imported workers to Saudi Arabia are virtual slaves, of course, working for next to nothing, and the Saudis get to keep their petro dollars for their own to live in luxury, while the Indonesians, Phillipinos, Indians, and Pakistanis who make up the vast majority of these "tcns" live in abject poverty to send a few coins home for their poverty stricken families--just as immigrant "guest workers" will do in the United States if this becomes policy.

Meanwhile, the value of American labor will drop so that American workers have no purchasing power, and you know what that means for the American economy.

It should be more appropriately a matter of morals, decency, and economic realism in our public policy, Daniel, not xenophobia.

Thanks for a really great argument, Nathan. I think this argument needs much more attention.

"[D]do you really think that a proposal that has bipartisan support in Congress in 2007 will be such a program?"

As you state it, the answer is, of course, "No."

The better question is, what improvements does the proposed law bring, versus what downsides? For that, we must wait for the details.

I must say I understand your phrase "progressive principles" as probable words of death for any realistic program, because as you know many who hold "progressive principles" say that nation-states are an obsolete form, that border enforcement is therefore an instrument of oppression, etc., etc.

I am sympathetic to the larger ideas underlying that notion, but not to the extent described above. I would not adopt a come-one-come-all immigration "policy."

The single biggest perceptual problem in this immigration mess is that the bosses have convinced the population that they may degrade the working conditions and pay of a job until Americans shy away from it, and then use that as justification for hiring non-citizens, legally or otherwise.

To me, when we undermine American workers in this way, it is a national economic security issue.

"How is it that you deserve to be an American? Do you work harder than immigrants? Do you start businesses? Do you contribute more? Maybe, maybe not. You certainly don't seem to approach any problem on more than a superficial level."

How is it that you deserve to be a child of rich parents and enjoy their wealth or to be an American and enjoy living in wealthy country.
Nobody deserve, they just are.

"Instead, of reasoned discussion and actual policy"

So what prevent you from starting one and put ypur proposal on the table?