1

re #1:
Short answer is yes -- but I don't think it would be neccessary.
If we immediately deport any illegal picked up for a crime and severely punish a few of those who knowingly hire illegals, the risk-reward ratio will be such that most illegals will just go home.

2

President Bush should be commended for addressing this issue. But does't this proposal really amount to an amnesty for those "undocumented men and women now employed in the United States" to whom the President now proposes to give "legal status?"

President Bush also said "our borders should be shut and barred tight to criminals." Those "undocumented Workers" are here illegally and are criminals.

We tried amnesty once before. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made nearly 4 million illegals eligible for legal residency. That policy was an obvious failure because now there are between 8 and 12 "undocumented workers." If amnesty is now given to these millions, then we should only expect that fifteen years from now we will have to consider amnesty for 20 or 30 million more.

3

I'd answer the second question if I got a bit more explanation about this "middle tier". Illegal immigrants already shift between a limited numver of low-paying jobs, and so this middle tier already should exist. What's different?

Right now, employers are required to ensure that employees have a right to work within the US. Employers who don't follow that protocol do so because the labor is not available any other way or it is so cheap that the risk/reward ratio is very low. If you have access to the same labor pool but through legal means, the risk/reward ratio goes through the roof. Most businesses simply won't bother hiring illegals any more. The key would be to making sure that the resources remain plentiful.

Even if a middle tier was created, then it's still likely to be a lot smaller than the problem we have now, and one we should be able to address through law enforcement.

I guess that's a yes ... :-)

4

I support it.
I think it provides a means to get it under control and provides cover for closing the border down tight (not politically possible at this time) and for more onerous penalties for those employers who circumvent the rules (also not politically possible).

I think this addresses the illegal alien problem by providing a mechanism to address the need for more labor while enforcing our immigration law. For example: what would happen if the authorities rigorously enforced the marijauna laws in the Bay area? An uprising.

5

I support the proposal. With a per capita income more than 10 times the Mexican average, the US will naturally attract those from south of the border. I think this plan will help the US economy (this income will be taxed) which is obviously a good thing for us, but it also helps those millions of people that want nothing more than a bit of the American dream that so many of us take for granted.
As for question #2: The possibilty that there may be some minor consequences to this decision should not hinder the US from helping millions of our neighbors. There have been consequences in Iraq as well, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have liberated the Iraqi people.
As for question #3: The principle of compassion if nothing else.

6

Mostly good to start thinking about the issues.

First, the FINE should be small monthly payments, ($100?, $200) for as long as they have been here illegally -- or some 3 years. So they have less to send back home.

Second, all LEGAL immigrants should be on a faster track, to make more legals available, and reduce the demand for illegals. Similarly, for some $50 000 anybody (any non-Muslim?) in the world should be able to quickly get a green card.

Third, in conjunction with legalization of the undocumented, the employers need to be hit with punitive fines if they do NOT check their Soc. Sec. (national ID) numbers.

Fourth, guest workers need to be tested for English language -- and pay a fee based on their mastery (or lack). English language is the single key assimilation skill needed. While everybody who can talk can learn English, learning another language is really hard. Incentives matter.

Practically, for today, it's a reasonable solution. But the moral hazard of "rewarding" the successful illegals is a big problem.

A better alternative would be a huge NEW guest worker program, ONLY for those not in the US who want to come -- combined with a crackdown on Employers and Landlords who employ and house illegals. Let the current illegals go back, quickly, and apply to be legal?

The only really HUMANE solution is the Lib one -- open borders. Statue of Liberty, let those who want to come, come. But no gov't benefits for new immigrants. Currently gov't benefits should be cut so as to allow more deserving needy to enter.

7

There is another reason for wanting to import workers from Mexico other than the need of workers at this particular moment. At a time when this country faces opposition from Iran, Syria, and North Korea it is quite possible our government at some time in the near future may need to call on our citizens to serve in the millitary. In order to do this the government would need the human resources to fill the empty positions of those who were working them. Bush's immigration reform does just that by giving an unlimited ammount of human resources to draw upon if the need should arise. If Bush is re-elected he will have 4 years to stabalize the Middle East and take care of North Korea if need be. it would take a massive draft of americans to do this. Shouldn't anyone who has the right to work in this country have to take civil responsibility through registering for selective service? In all actuallity Amnesty would be a much better solution for it would limit the ammount of human resources our government could draw upon.