On Demand
Open Phones: What's so bad about amnesty?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Debate is raging about whether the Word "amnesty" applies to the new immigration bill, but that assumes amnesty is a dirty word. Listeners call in to comment on the question "what's so bad about amnesty?"
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
This is for the final part of the discussion:
Now that we're moving toward a Canadian-style education and skills-based immigration program, can we finally get to work on a decent national health plan?
My daughter worked for a non-profit in Phillie as a lawyer for those trying to come here legally, seeking asylum. The frustration for these families is enormous and heartbreaking..and down right awful on the part of our government. Some of these families have been separated for 8 or more years, the children missing their parents and the parents unable to be a part of the growing years of their children! Will these people be pushed to the head of the line over the "illegals"???
Question:
Everyone talks about "illegal immigrants" but then is essentially only discussing Mexican immigrants. What able immigrants from the rest of the world that are also here "illegally"? It seems unlikely that someone from, for example, Ghana, could fly home and fly back. Or is this just for Mexicans?
PS This is a question that came from a Mexican immigrants that has been here 18 years, works, has a family here but remains without papers.
On the air someone mentioned this bill is also about making sure no american want the job before giving it to an immigrant... then what about all the jobs that are going overseas? what about all the corporate sweatshops? clearly those too are jobs we need, if not want.
My family came here legally 14 years ago from Brazil and it took us 3 years waiting in our home country to move to the US. It cost us over USD$50,000 in legal fees between processing fees, lawyer fees, other costs, etc. Advertising in newspapers to make sure we were not displacing an American worker amongst many other things.
Why should people that simply come here on a tourist visa and overstay their visa or perhaps just cross the border should be placed ahead of the line of legal immigrants like ourselves?
Why should they not pay $5,000 in a fine, minimum?
They think that they can simply break the law and then grant a blank amnesty?
Deciding that you want to be part of the US Citizen or work towards citizenship means obeying the laws that govern this country not pick and choosing which you want to obey.
To all those who's position is based on the concept "they're here illegally, that makes them criminals, they deserve no amnesty..." I would ask for a consistancy of position: since so many vast lands were taken from Native American tribes illegally, in direct contravention of treaties and laws, everyone living on those lands should be relocated and the land returned to the Native tribes. After all, they are there illegally.
Or, might that be both inhumane and impractical?
Those saying that a guest worker program is unworkable are nothing more than bigoted racists. On balance the benefit the United States gains economically from immigrants, both legal and illegal outweighs the strain they put on government services. Furthermore their arguments speak only to labor coming from south of the United States border. What of the many immigrants from Canada on our other border. Then there are the many immigrants from Europe and Asia, evidently they pose little or no threat to the "American" way of life.
It is my understanding, based on anecdote, that already in the Mexican community, men often arrive in the U.S. illegally to seek work, leaving wives and children behind in Mexico. Once here, they form new families with girlfriends or even marry here since the U.S. authorities won't find out about a marriage in Mexico. If this is the case, any program that makes it difficult for intact families to come here, or which encourages men to come here on their own, will result in more bigamous relationships among people who are already unable to provide adequately for one family.
NOTHING!
I worry about "Amnesty" only because I think it amounts to a corporate give-away. Illegal immigration and the governmental responses have NOT continued based upon what is best for the American middle class. I let us work for fair wages, severely punish those who break those laws, and let good people from Mexico and elsewhere come and make lives for themselves.
You wrote "Is it so bad to grant amnesty to people whose only crime was to sneak into the united states to work?" You also have incorrectly called all immigrants technically out of immigration status as illegal immigrants.
You are missing how a huge percentage of the people who are technically out of immigration status have not violated any criminal laws. They arrived perfectly legally, did not sneak into the United States, and have technically overstayed the time allowed or in the midst of the hyper-technical immigration laws fell out of status for any one of dozens of technical reasons.
When you realize this big fact, you will see the whole idea of calling it amnesty makes no sense -- if a large percentage of the people who will benefit have never committed any crime, why would they require "amnesty" for anything?
A better question is -- why do people try to call something amnesty when a large percentage of those it would help have never committed any crime and have no criminal record?
It is more like giving a future benefit that did not exist before. In another administrative area (taxes), if Bush wants to cut the estate tax, it is called a change in the administrative rules, not amnesty.
Undocumented people are not criminals. There should be amnesty with some strings,such as length of time here, a fine, no criminal record, availability of a job for the person applying, some sponsorship by an employer, character recommendation. These are good people and should be allowed to stay without having to go home to reapply. The immigration services in the home countries often can't be trusted.
What happens to legal immigrants who work for small non-profits and are not paid enough to get the green card through the labor certification. After 6 years, the H1 work visa can not be renewed.
So what happens with these people? They are well-educated, legal and still have to go back after 6,7,8 years in this country.
Imagine you came home and found someone in your kitchen cooking your dinner. When you asked her to leave, she answered, "why are you asking me to leave, I'm helping you". You still have the right to tell her to leave.
People who come here without being invited to enter should not be allowed to stay.
It seems to me that illegal immigrants are exactly the sort of people that we want in the US. They have the initiative and motivation to leave countries where they can't get ahead, and they want to work to support themselves and their families. Sounds like very American values to me.
I also think that the rhetoric on the anti-immigration side lacks compassion. On today's show Mark said, "Too bad" when he was asked about the hardship this act will place on illegals. Yeah, too bad.
What's so bad about amnesty is that it grants an entire class of lawbreakers the very thing they broke the law to achieve, i.e., a right to legal residence. It is essentially changing the law, after the fact, to accommodate lawbreakers. This weakens respect for the law and encourages other people to disregard our immigration laws.
Amnesty works for an entire class of people only if it does not damage another class. In this case, illegal workers granted amnesty will be welcomed by businesses large and small to displace every more legal workers and citizens through wage depression. Who's more eager to work for less, after all? Legitimate residents who have established a middle-class standard of living and the commitments that go with it? I don't think so. Even granting that illegal immigrants for the most part take lower-wage jobs, they also remove any and all pressure on businesses and government to provide a living wage to entry-level workers. As for guest workers, H1B visas and the like -- guest workers in disguise -- have been abused for years by businesses to disemploy solidly middle-class Americans (me included). It's not about racism. It's about the insatiable greed of American business for excessive profits at the expense of the middle and lower classes.
What's wrong with amnesty? That's simple.
1) It rewards bad behavior.
2) It (literally) results in tragic outcomes for those waiting in line (in their home country) and allows the criminal element (those reckless enough enter illegally) to take places of potential legal immigrants through annual national quota restrictions by our government.
3) Creates a disincentive for anyone to stay in line, and do things the right way.
Amnesty is not a bad word - it's about correcting an unrealistic situation that our current immigration laws have created. Lawmakers and others who are against policy that promotes legalization put it in terms of 'rewarding' people who have broken a law; however, they do not stop to think that the law itself is unrealistic. Just because a law exists does not mean it is correct. If opportunities to legally enter are not available but demand for labor exists, then what options do immigrants have? I have worked extensively with immigrants, and they would overwhelmingly rather enter legally (as living in the shadows creates anxiety and fear), but they often do not have that choice. I would also like to ask anti-immigration advocates a question: What would you do if you were from a country where your wages did not allow you to support your family but you want the best for your family? Have you imagined the courage and perserverance it must take to migrate to another country? It's not about immigrants wanting to break laws and disrupt the society of the destination country, as people argue. It's about global inequalities that have created these disproportions between countries. The United States, which contributes to this global and unequal economic system, must better adjust its immigration laws to the reality of this situation. And that means a long-term and sustainable solution - not a temporary, guest-worker problem that will only exacerbate the current situation and ignore the human aspect of immigration, which also implies integration into a host society, family, and citizenship (in the social sense).
Here we go again! With each new election cycle, we are duped by the Right into endless discussions about a newest group to fear. This time around, fear of terrorists flooding our shores from Iraq won't sell, fear of gays getting married has served its purpose and fear of weak Democratic leadership has been proved nonsense by Nancy Pelosi. So, we need to have a great national debate about the threat posed to us by the mop and leafblower toting hordes.
The fact is that everyone wants secure borders and no one was really very concerned about illegals until the GOP focus-grouped the issue and found that it could stir up their base. And as always, we have all been drawn in.
All the US employer's illegally hiring the 12 Million illegal immigrants have been "granted" automatic amnesty by way of non-enforcement of the US labor laws. Why should millions of people not get a break!
Several Points:
1. The I.C.E. does not have the technology to do the 24hr background checks which the new law would require. How many undesirable people would then be granted visas?
2. We should look to Australia as a model of how an immigration policy can be effective. Their skills based immigration has been very succesful.
3. I'm perplexed in handling my children's queries of why is it okay to break the law sometimes? What kind of message is our government sending to our children when they reward those who break laws.
Amnesty is bad primarily for two reasons. it teaches us, what politicians already teach, that only fools follow the law. Furthermore, the GAO has already stated that we spend three dollars for every dollar we take in from illegal aliens, and this number will go up many fold once they become entitled to food stamps medicare, medicaid, socail security, etc. Most of them will not have to pay taxes since their earnings are too low to tax, and we, the legal citizens will have to pay the bill so businessman get cheap labor and Democrats get more voters. This is evil.
With appropriate rules amnesty should only be applied to those "illegal's" who would pledge and become 'American Citizens'
I believe the proposed immigration bill - cannot satisfy everyone - but it begins to address/define some of the existing problems that we face - as American's - and the attitudes that seemingly could bring this country down - beyond wages/working conditions.
There is more but it would take all day!
As an african american, I find this conversation hysterical, b/c I have friends that want jobs in the construction industry and/or restaurant business and they can not find jobs. In the construction industry, they are consistently not hired, not allowed in the unions, etc. In the restaurant business, if they even get a job, the owners want them to keep the same job instead of moving up to waiter or hostess, head chef, etc....that is why they continually use the illegal immigrants b/c historically they don't stand up and accept the status quo because they are hiding and living in the shadows. Once they become legal, they face and will face the same issues of separation and prejudice. Thanks.
Amnesty should absolutely be granted to all undocumented immigrants who are here because their parents brought them here illegally as children. These are individuals who broke no law and had no decision-making role in the creation of their illegal status but who find themselves, having grown up as and with US citizen kids, perpetually outsiders, unable to feel part of the society in which they live, locked out of the rights and benefits other children can look forward to, and without any experience living in their county of origin to which they are sometimes eventually deported.
This could be done by a grant of automatic citizenship, or at least a green card, upon completion of high school or after a certain number of years in the US or at a certain age.
There would need to be a sort of auxiliary amnesty for the parents and family of these kids so that they would not risk causing the deportation of their parents by applying for their own amnesty.
It is barbaric that children of illegals who have grown up here are sometimes deported to countries of origin where they have never lived or else that they remain stuck here for life in a fugitive status, a shady legal netherworld of fear and ousider alienation, because of their parents having brought them here as young minors, through no action of their own.
First let me say that very few have just snuck in and not broken any other law...because to get a drivers license they need false documents...so now we have broken at least 2 laws. How many laws can you break before you have to pay for them. So, I do not agree with the opening premise. But let's play in fake world...My mother came from the Netherlands. Her father had to work VERY hard just to get into this country. There are TONS of people who try very hard to get in here legally. What about them. So now we want to NOT punish the ILLEGAL and PUNISH the legal...come one...From an economics standpoint the work will get done, even if we were to kick every single illegal out. It is called supply and demand. The prices of things will go way up...sure, but that is the price you pay for LEGAL things. I am willing to pay that price. The price for doing things the legal way. I want everyone to have a shot at being an American. I think we need to make it easier to become a citizen and to get into this country, but these ideas have not worked in the past (CARTER administration) and will not work in the future.
Brian, you might also ask HOW the term "amnesty" enters our lexicon. Like the term "illegal alien" the term does not enter our lexicon ex nihilo; it comes from the workings of people, people like multimillionaire John Tanton, who funds most major anti-immgrant groups, including think tanks that researched and promoted use of these terms. Tanton also holds eugencist beliefs and has links to neo-nazi and kkk groups (see Southern Pverty Law Center and others
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=93
"Amnesty" focuses on criminality, not on the humanity, hard work of those who care for the children, mow the lawns, serve the food of some of the same people who use such terms without knowing why. We need to give thanks to them and "Amnesty" masks this,while linking to the political interests of those manitreaming hate.
Thanks.
R
So many of the objections to amnesty rest on crude envy, or/and racism. This is an old story. My great-grandmother came illegaly, I'm sure, and from Ireland in 1870. In those days, the Irish were the scapegoats. Most of my other ancestors, however, were of glossier and earlier origin, and no one objected to them.
It never fails to impress me that so many people who object to hispanic immigration have surnames that indicate ancestry that would have borne a stigma a generation ago or two or three. In the midwestern village where I grew up in the fifties there was a growing, but not yet mature consensus that people with Italian names really did merit the rights and privileges of white people.
The hispanics are here to stay. They are assimilating as much as previous immigrant groups were at similar stages in their tenure in the United States.
We should see any new culture as an opportunity to broaden ourselves. I've learned Spanish, along with other languages, and the hispanic immigrants learn English once they've been here long enough. Immigration is something to celebrate, not to fear.
Amnesty will, in the end, benefit the great majority of Americans, both now and in the future.
immigration strikes me as complex problem that might be best addresssed by breaking it down into smaller more managable problems starting with those where it's easiest to reach agreement. amnesty is a case in point.
not all amnesty problems are the same.
some people are here illegaly because they were brought here illegally as children. it wasn't their decision. they've grown up here and assimilated, but are handicapped by their status. surely this is a different situation than that of an adult who makes a deliberate choice to come here illegally.
i suspect that some folks who are generally opposed to amnesty might be willing to make an exeption of those who wind up illegal through no fault of their own.
- ef
The amnesty discussion should begin with a different question. Is the problem to be addressed the presence of illegal immigrants or the inflow of those immigrants? Amnesty may solve one problem, while exacerbating another. Granting legal status to those already present will likely encourage others to enter the country illegally in the hope and expectation that, in time, amnesty will be granted again.
I do not argue for or against amnesty. But the debate should accept that there will never be just one amnesty.
Both my parents immigrated to the US legally. I was brought up to believe that being honest and working hard is a good thing. If you let people get a free ride, why is that a good thing? Just like bringing up a child, if you give them everything they grow up spoilt and with an attitude of entitlements. No one is entitled to get anything for free, and if you start that policy with Amnesty, you begin a policy of Entitlements for someone who broke the law.
A problem with the amnesty idea is that it tries to apple a single solution to a large heterogenious group. There are many groups: students and tourists who overstayed their visas, illegals brought here as children not of their own choice, people who snuck in to work to support families back home due to extreme poverty at home, people who pay traffickers to smuggle them in, people who are persecuted or in danger at home but have no way to apply for refugee status while still in their country of origin, Haitians coming by boat with completely different legal status from Cuban coming by boat et cetera.
There can only be heated controversy when a a single proposed solutions tries to resolve such a diverse range of legal status problems.
Lets all pay 10% more for food and pay farm workers a decent wage - heck 25%..then Americans will take those jobs. We are spoiled and corporations take advantage of this to exploit illegals. They are willing to work for lousy wages because compared to their home country(largely Mexico) its a fortune. Amnesty is a sop to business...it is not helping people, it does not help families stay together. It just continues exploitation. It makes legal immigration a joke. Why should anyone go thru the torture of form after form and years of waiting if just overstaying a visa eventaully gets legal status?
Amnesty is one of those words no one wants to use these days. But, I hope you, Mr. Lehrer, bring it up. I think both political parties (to various degrees) are hypocritical.
We've ALREADY given amnesty to countless of American businesses that have benefitted from this low-wage & hard-working labor pool.
Our Congress gave AMNESTY--legal, financial, labor laws, immigration--to US businesses in the Mariannas Islands. Actually the previous Congressional leadership (under the Repub. Tom Delay, etc) was proud of doing so, even if slave-like conditions persisted there!
So, it's time to stop being hypocritical about this issue and produce a reasonable law. Because a BROKEN LAW is ineffective and even dangerous. We have to put things into perspective, too, like why are our senior citizens travel to Canada to buy drugs they need but can't afford in the US. Likewise for the immigration regulations.
Thank you.
PS>I'm an immigrant myself (came to the US in 1980 as a student); now I teach American history and political science to college studetns--many of whom are first gen. immigrants.
I think most people don't like the idea that we are rewarding illegal behavior by giving amnesty- actually, what about the people who have legally applied to enter the country and are patiently waiting for their paperwork?
I support amnesty because realistically, we can't throw out 12 million illegal immigrants!
I thought amnesty implied a well thought out pardon for the action of one individual who took a stand against fundamental political or legal injustice. There is nothing noble about entering a country illegally for your own selfish purposes. This proposed amnesty is in essence an national OOPS...we haven’t effectively enforced the law, let’s just REBOOT THE LAW (again). It engenders a profound disgust with government and undermines a desire to observe all laws if they’re so subjective and mercurial. Allowing millions of criminals legal status sullies the value of American citizenship. Sardonic satire has become our de facto national ethos.
The millions of illegals in the USA are here because businesses don't want to pay Americans the true value of the jobs they want done. Now the president wants to grant amnesty (and let's call it what it is).
When illegals become legal they'll be entitled to the same wages and workplace protections as all other citizens. Why will business continue to hire them? Why won't employers simply seek more illegals that they can pay below market wages to? By allowing unrestricted illegal immigration we've allowed our businesses to become dependent on below market wages.
Didn't Ted Kennedy claim that he'd never bring an amnesty bill before the Senate ever again way back in 1986? But here he is performing the same sort of dance all over again. And in a decade or two from now someone else will be doing it all over again.
What's so bad about it is that it forms part of the devolution of our value system, which is steadily declining. If someone lies on their resume just to get a job, they are subject to being fired solely for this. Why not excuse them with the same rationale that "they only wanted to get a job?" The analogies are endless.
If I break into a bank and steal money, can I rationalize it by saying "But I only committed this crime because I wanted money"? Rules are rules.
Look, I'm in favor of more liberal immigration policy. Frankly, I'd be in favor of a policy that lifted levels of immigration to hitherto unimaginable levels.
But the question of "what's so bad about amnesty?" is incredibly naive.
The problem with "amnesty" in the eyes of both nativists and many average Americans is that it seems to be rewarding people for breaking the law. It tells people who follow the law that they are suckers.
Here's the thing: Our immigration laws are broken. We need a lot more workers than we let in legally.
But the people that we let in should be under the conditions of our own choosing.
I think we should let in as many immigrants from Asia as will come until Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics make up about 40% (combined) of our population. Then, a moratorium.
(What can I say? I like Asian people a lot and their cuisine even more...)
Changing an administrative rule (that is not even a criminal law) does not fit the usual use of the term "amnesty"
Being undocumented is not a crime, it is nearly always merely an administrative violation. Meanwhile, Congress can grant whatever benefits it wants to.
Why is it that when NY raised the speed limit from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, nobody screamed that it was amnesty? By changing the administrative rules, it allowed people who broke the original rules to get away with it in the future and take advantage of the new rule. But it is not amnesty.
If NYC changes the cabaret laws to permit dancing, that is a change in the administrative rules -- people do not generally call that amnesty either.
Finally, changing the administrative immigration rules to let the widows of 9/11 victims proceed with their immigration applications (which otherwise would have expired because the petitioner died) was just the right and fair thing to do. People correctly did not slap the label of amnesty on Congress's decision.
The problem with amnesty is that we are forgiving (and forgeting) an illegal act. That is not only unfair to the immigrants who are here legally, but will also encourage ongoing illegal actions including but not limited to immigration. Laws that are not enforced are not laws.
Amnesty disses all the hopeful immigrants doing it the legal way.
AT least we are seeing Congress do SOMETHING. It's a start. Let's see where it goes, 'cause the current Status Quo is Not Good.
Illegal immigrants are largely unskilled & uneducated. With globalization, it is the unskilled jobs employing the less educated that are leaving the US. Advocates of amnesty often contend that illegal immigrants simply take jobs that Americans don't want. However, I believe the opportunity to employ illegals simply allows employers to pay less than a living wage. If illegals became legal and could demand a living wage, there would simply be too many people straining the social services. We don't take care of our poor now, what makes anyone think that would change when there are more poor applying for government funds? It is unrealistic to criminalize illegal residency; the risk of prosecution in the US will never deter illegal immigration. The only solution is to criminalize the employment of illegals and enforce the law. After a few millionaires are in jail and unable to enjoy the fruits of employing illegals, there won't be jobs that are better than the alternatives at home and illegals will self-deport.
Amnesty both encourages future illegal
immigration and at the same time does an
huge disservice for all those trying to enter legally.
Amnesty is needed if we're to legalize people that have an "illigal" status in the US - how else can it be done? Has an american tried to legally immigrate to say Australia and see how long the process would take. The volumus paperwork alone would drive even the most ardent form filler insane. People with illigal status are people above all. When one breaks the law one pays a fine or serves out a penality and it's over. "Illigals" should pay a fine and obtain a resident status. They shouldn't be required to go back to their country, essentially making it very difficult to follow documents and procedures in unchartered local beaurocracies and most likely a deterent for coming back to the US. The creative force of immigration created this country and we should maintain a positive, humane and workable solution to an immigration situation which is mostly ignored by the general population.The government in charge of creating immigration policies should invite all interested parties to submit their most important concerns, as well as, reach across the borders to foreign govenments whose people come amass, and create an umbrella policy that is fair and well balanced. Immigration to the US is a fresh flow of energy not an alien invasion.
The demonization of 'amnesty' reminds me of the campaign to vilify 'liberal'. This has the stamp of Frank "death Tax" Luntz.
1. a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.
2. Law. an act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.
3. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense.
–verb (used with object) 4. to grant amnesty to; pardon.
My husband arrived 6 months ago on a fiancee visa. He would love to take one of these "unskilled jobs" or any job for that matter. However, the US Government will not let him work until his Green Card is processed - which could take years. We have already spent thousands of dollars and endured a long separation to get him here legally. Now we are faced with more waiting until he can work and visit his family. How can we justify giving amnesty to all these people when there are millions who did things the legal way still waiting for their turn?
I find amnesty to illegal immigrants repugnant. Call it vindictive if you like. But as someone who spent many agonizing months away from my foreign born wife while we endured the immigration process, I feel little sympathy for those who circumvent the process.
I am immigrant, myself, who did not see my mother for two years as a child. I have personal knowledge of other families waiting 10 years and more at a time to reunite with children/siblings. They are unable to visit their family due to cost and the need to be on the job and they are unable to bring their families due to processing delays.
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO NEED AMNESTY!
Tell me, is it really fair to CONTINUE to punish those who have been waiting 10 years or more while rewarding those who never got in line with an express line?
There's nothing wrong with amnesty except that the opponents of any move that reaches out to immigrants have turned the word into a pejorative. It's the same thing that conservatives had done for the word liberal.
I agree completely with what Mr. Carter said yesterday about Brian. he's the best interviewer around.
Amnesty is a wonderful gesture to those who snuck into this country for no other reason than to provide a better life for themselves and their family, or maybe it’s a selfish gesture by those who wish to keep a supply of cheap labor. Either way, it is a slap in the face to all of those who obeyed the law and spent years trying to get into America.
There are countless indolent men and women who merely by virtue of their being born here, believe they are more entitled to enjoy the benefits of living in this country than a foreigner who has covertly traveled thousands of miles and works many hours of hard labor daily to support self and family. I say deport the people who were born here and haven't contributed anything to the betterment of society in their many decades here, and replace them with those who are willing to work hard.
Because 50% of African-Americans don't graduate from high school.
Because 50% of American Latinos don't graduate high school.
A high school dropout used to be able to support a family doing unskilled work: sheetrock, roofing, painting, landscaping.
Now, unskilled AMERICANS can't find work because illegals are taking those jobs.
Let's put AMERICANS first, for a change.
~
It's like the kids who get a candy bar at the end of the year for bringing all their overdue books back to the library. What about the kids who were responsible enough to always bring their books back ontime? They don't get the candy. It's rewarding bad behaviour. It's not fair. All should start on equal ground.
I think no-one is looking long term at this issue. Where will the jobs be for the unskilled children of the illegal immigrants?
Only 50% of Hispanic children graduate from high school.We are exporting jobs overseas and will continue to employ illegal immigrants for low skilled service jobs.
The children of this giant wave of immigrants will be like the second generation immigrants in Europe- they will not be willing to do the same work as their parents at the same low wages. Theywil be born and raised American citizens with all the the sense of entitlements that entails. Who is palnning long-term?
There are many issues involved here-education, bilingualism and helath care. Not to mention the other immigrants all over the world who would like to come here legally.
If the amnesty is granted to the people already here, that doesn't mean that there will be no more restrictions in the future. It only means that those who have already arrived will be avoid punishment.
If amnesty is not granted, will all of those people be arrested? There is no way that our law enforcement system can manage that task, so we might as well save the time and money and move on.
What is bad about amnesty is that it will reinforce the concept that the wages that the jobs that illegals take are realistic and fair. This immigration bill has it's genesis in a drive to keep a lowly paid workforce that serves the businesses that use such workers.
Is anyone addressing the issue of disease? Ellis Island screened immigrants for disease. We know, according to one report, there has been a significant increase in leprosy since 2000 and most coming from Mexico and Brazil.
Aside from being "just not fair", why would we want to welcome to our country people who have decided that the rules don't apply to them when they find it counter to their needs. What if they don't find employment? Is it then OK to shoplift or find illegitimate means to survive here. To say we can't possibly deport all undocumented people here is ludicrous. It seems we can't win the war on drugs either. Should we therefore make that legal?
IN MY OPINION, immigration is simply a proxy for racist beliefs that consciously or subconsciously exist in the hearts/minds of "Americans."
50 years ago, it would be the politician with the most vehement opposition to equality for black people who garnered the most votes. Today it's the one who is tough on immigration.
The "tell" here is that the ruling class, as represented by legislators, has ZERO incentive to actually eliminate illegal immigration Doing so would increase the cost of labor/goods beyond the capacity of the average american to afford. They simply pander to a working class that has been brainwashed to believe that immigrants (mexicans) have taken their jobs. The fact that the only reason they can afford most of the goods they consume is because the manufacturers did their best to contain labor costs.
$15 for a head of lettuce picked by a fully-benefitted U.S. citizen anyone?
abe
We already have a form of 'amnesty' in another area of American life; it is called 'bankruptcy'. We don't question how someone got into financial diffiulties, (medical problems, credit cards, bad investments...) we give them another chance. There are penalties for bankruptacy; no credit for a number of years, some have repayment schedules, sale of un-necessary/luxury items, etc. After a period of good behavior, the bankruptcy becomes history.
If someone lives here, works here, has no criminal record, pays income tax, pays their fine, 'gets in line', learns English, follows the law..... where is their 'second chance'. They are behaving like citizens already.
Illegal immegrants have it better here than in their home country, but don't get the idea that means they have it GOOD here. They have limited expectations, left their family behind, worry constantly about authority, accept low pay. They are desperate to survive. When one is starving, following the rules and waiting in line is a luxury.
Failure to create a sustainable economy may be a more significant issue than immigration. If, as claimed, 1/3 of future US jobs will not require a high school education, those jobs should be reserved for US-born subliterates leaving US “high schools.” Undocumented subliterates must therefore be deported. Perhaps some NYC high schools should be closed and the land sold to developers. NYC’s budget would show a gain rather than a loss. New York’s City University may be an unnecessary expense. Some tax-saving action by Congress would be preferable to the current wheel-spinning in DC.
While I agree that in general immigrants from certain countries such as Mexico and those in eastern europe are harder workers and don't have the entitlement attitude that is sending us down a spiral of incompetence and mediocrity, there is a dangerous message in amnesty which is forgiveness for committing a crime.
Perhaps it is since Watergate, or maybe it has always been so, but it appears that there is an increasing lack of morality (not relgion) and responsibility for one's own actions. Hit and run drivers, overcompensated CEOs stealing from shareholders and employee's pension funds,cheating scandals in schools, some of which include the teachers, there is a sense that lying is acceptable and cheating is the way to go. Sleeping one's way to the top, unfettered nepotism, providing employment that is then protected and enhanced by a relationship with someone with some power rather then by way of merit, whether it is talent and skill or hard work.
While the economy and illegal immigrants may be advantaged by amnesty, our sense of fairness and honesty is not. What is more important?
pssst. here's a secret corporations don't want you to know --- the law of supply and demand works for labor as well as goods. it is really interesting how the far-left falls into the right-wing (business end) sales pitch. it was only a few years ago (before immigration got to a fever pitch) that we were told the reason there is such wage disparity in America was due to our education system producing too many unskilled workers... now we want access to a world wide supply in the billions?! On top of that business wants unrestricted access to skilled labor as well... to the people who back this bill, i hope you like the economic shape it leaves both you and the country in. it seems the par of the left now wants a permanent and ever growing underclass of people unable to lift themselves up the rungs because all the rungs in the middle of the ladder are breaking under the pressure and part of the right wing is all for it. we in the middle are just left holding the bag for these extreme interests.
Was listening briefly this AM - did not hear any mention of the medical costs, social services and prison costs to US citizens from illegals. Did you see the figures in the LA TIMES article?
Thank you for your attention.
DS
At the risk of sounding mean-spirited, I am not in favor of giving amnesty freely. Obviously, there are many people out there who have not had direct contact with the tremendous influx of immigrants lately. You only have to walk in my neighborhood once to feel like you are not in America anymore. It seems as though this new wave of immigrants have no respect for the country in which they have made their home. Stores have signs in foreign languages, without any indication as to the type of stores they are, and no translation for those of us who are not familiar with that particular language. Inside many stores, employees are speaking with customers, in languages other than English. As a matter of fact, you hear very little English spoken in my neighborhood at all. I had to move from my prior residence, a large apartment building, because the apartments in that building became occupied by two and three families per apartment, causing unhealthy living conditions, and a noise level beyond endurance. This is more the norm than the exception in my neighborhood. I believe we need immigration quotas and limits. I would hope for a law to insist that store signs and advertisements are written in English, or at least translated so the rest of us can understand them. I would like a law included that made immigrants responsible for learning to speak the American version of English in a reasonable period of time. Lastly, we absolutely need to have very thorough background checks, especially since our open society is very vulnerable to terrorist infiltration.
Regarding David Brook's Harvard image, it is worth noting that the Jews who crowded into Manhattan's Lower East Side were often derided as ignorant and indeed uneducable. But within a generation, their children had succeeded so well that schools like Harvard devised "Jewish quotas" to keep their numbers down.
Thanks
My grandparents immigrated into the USA. However, I think at the current time we should stop all immigration. Here's why. Years ago, immigration filled a void. The need for labor. There was such a demand, that my grandfarther who came here from Italy at the age of 16 was able to work, marry, raise three children (all of whom graduated college) and build a two family house. But the demand for work in the US now is flawed. There are people who are out of work, but who can not take a job earning minimum wage because they won't be able to put their kids through college and afford housing. If you cut off the immigrants, those manual jobs will be forced to raise wages. Maybe we will even get to the point where these people will have the same respect as someone who graduated college. Instead we are building a duel citizenship. Those who can afford to educate their kids and those who scub our toilets, but are denied the same rights as everyone else who works in this country. Stop immigration until our society once again recognizes the contribution of those who clean our houses and recognize them as humans as well.
The difference between waves of immigration in the past and now is 1- the speed of which this happens due to modern transport 2- the fact that we have a welfare state that didn't exist before. I personally would pay a few extra cents on produce or a few extra bucks on services not to pay thousands extra on property and income taxes to subsidize cheap labor for corporations. Also, as far as the comments about breaking up families, they make the choice to come here - this should be part of their calculation, no?! no one forces people to immigrate.
To those who seem to be equating amnesty for illegal immigrants with pardon for a heinous crime, someone should explain that entry to our country without a visa is not a felony, but a relatively minor offense (a civil penalty of $250 maximum, or 6 months in jail, maximum, and not mandated). They should also understand that prosecutorial discretion--a concept well grounded in common law--dictates that all offenders need not be "punished" to the full extent of the law.
Given the injustices, both in their country of origin and this country that force people to brave the dangerous journey to this country simply to feed their families, my personal belief is that people who are here illegally, but working to send money home, and not committing any actual crimes, have passed a kind of entrance exam for citizenship, and should be allowed to stay.
Where is the kindness, the mercy, that used to be the hallmark of being an American, as we were after the second world war?
regina, i guess out of kindness we should open the door to the entire 4 billion 3rd world citizens living here so we can all join the 3rd world living conditions? give me a break.
I think amnesty provides a clear-cut, no-nonsense way to integrate persons who are already here into the social and economic framework of this country. It is also consistent with NAFTA in that stives toward the creation of a single, unimpeded market over North America. Since NAFTA, the labor portion of this market has been continually left out of this legislation's realization because of the immigration debate, and it is time that we have a coherent free-trade policy.
Our immigration system is not broken. It is merely our government who chooses not to enforce the laws we have. They should all be held accountable and tried for treason.
We are a nation of immigrants, that is legal not illegal. Those who chose to come across our borders knew they were breaking our laws and now they think they should be rewarded. Those who say "families will be torn apart" should remember it is the illegals who should take responsibility for their lawlessness and not blame their misfortune on our government should things not go their way.
Now consider this...do all illegal immigrants want citizenship? When they find out about the so called penalties they will have to pay maybe they will choose to remain "in the shadows". They will continue to drive down wages and send their money back to their homeland (no one asks what that does to our economy). Question how will our government enforce the so called immigration reform on these people who didn't come out for legalization? Will they be deported? How will the government find them if they don't know where they are now?
We need enforcement first! Implement severe fines to employers who hire illegal aliens.
We are a passionate, humane country but do not think illegal aliens can dictate how many of themselves can come into our country at any given time. We have a legal entry system. If it is not fast enough for them and choose to break our laws by illegal entry then they should face the consequences and not be rewarded with Amnesty.
I raised my family in the 70's moving furniture and landscaping. It paid a good wage and provided health benefits. Now I look next door and the landscapers are doing the work while the business owner lives next door to the mayor.
I mention this because I'm tired of hearing that ILLEGALS provide labor for jobs Americans don't want to do.
Amnesty is fine if the workers will make a living wage in the USA. This should not be an open door policy to ferret cheap labor across the border.
I sympathize with the immigration here to provide a better life for their families. Sending money to families in a foriegn country does absolutely nothing for America except to shrink it's middle class.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.