Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise)

[qesehmk]

Now that is an intellectual and profound argument heard from GOP side - whether one agrees or not with Senator Sessions.

http://budget.senate.gov/republican/...4-d64c557e2a1b

As Ranking Member Sessions has explained, “Encouraging self-sufficiency must be a bedrock for our immigration policy, with the goal of reducing poverty, strengthening the family, and promoting our economic values. But Administration officials and their policies are working actively against this goal.”

When the bill S.1 is drafted, OMB and the Committee on budget will assign a very big cost to it.

[abcx13]

I have no problem discussing it. I am only pointing out that although we feel we deserve to be here more than the illegals, the host country may not feel that way for whatever reasons. I was also talking from the perspective of taking sides. If you went to your senator tomorrow and told him/her how you hated this 11m+ legalization, it will hurt us too! If we hope to accomplish anything, we need to be united in a common cause and convey a consistent message. Other than that, discuss all you want.

Also, a *few thousand* H1Bs is a myth just to be clear. It's a *few thousand new H1Bs per year*, which can quickly escalate into a substantial white collar workforce competing against other white collar Americans.

If you actually asked the people of the host country and not the politicians, most of them would support the legal skilled immigrants over the illegals.

[abcx13]

I echo that samrat.

Another point is - who is to call them illegal? Arizona Texas California were all part of mexico and US took them all by force i.e. illegally from Mexico! How about the rest of the US (except Louisiana) which was taken from various different Indian Americans - again through wars - i.e. illegally. Same with Hawaii .... just one fine day US felt like having Hawaii and made it part of their territory.

The funny thing is - even white people show the decency and honesty to admit this and stand by all immigrants. Heck - if that was not true - Obama would never be the president. But it's a pity that some Indians coming from India remain coward and narrow minded when it comes to self-interest.

Call it racist, elitist, call it what you want. I will not be put in the same category as someone who jumped the fence illegally. Not all Mexicans become illegals - a lot of them choose to stay behind. You do a disservice to the ones who chose to follow the law. And you must be joking about white people standing by all immigrants...if that were the case, this bill would have been passed many years ago. This is not about cowardice or narrow-mindedness. The country simply cannot afford to pay for these 11m illegals. And even if they could, the opportunity cost is letting in 11m highly skilled people instead.

Give the 11m illegals temporary working visas, but I don't see why a path to citizenship should be offered to someone who violated one of the most sacrosanct laws.

I agree with the broad picture.

abcx --> I don't deny parts of your argument; especially the one about "relative merit". However, the illegal immigration problem is a problem of the *Americans*. Until we get the citizenship, we are not stakeholders. Hence, we cannot pass judgment or criticism to our host country regarding the specific policy choices they make. If the relief to our plight is depending upon letting 11M+ people in the queue, so be it. We should do anything and everything in our power to push the CIR.

The CIR also stands to have a good outcome if it is a one time amnesty coupled with tighter border security and prevention of future illegal immigration. I do agree with the *moral hazard* argument, but I also think it is stretched to a point of being racist. The *moral hazard* argument is employed very typically by tea-partiers, who conveniently ignore the trillions of dollars bailouts to *mostly white* Wall Street. At least these 11M+ people took risks, live in constant danger of deportation and have lived in life long humiliation of *having no papers*. If we really think from their perspective, we would empathize better. Legalizing these people will make them stakeholders to preventing future illegal immigration and bring them in the mainstream US economy, reduce the remuneration they send to their parent countries and keep the money in the US, and improve their living conditions and push the wages at the lowest rung higher causing a *trickle up* effect. This is the exact same argument I had used for HR 3012. We Indians are in a way similar in our situation (not the actual intensity of plight, but in concept) to our illegal brothers and sisters. We don't have *options* and we are exploited in various H1B scams. If we had the same options as everyone else, our H1B transgressions would disappear and the vicious circle would be broken. That would be the way to fix it unless one happened to believe that Indians are inherently dishonest (similar to believing all illegal immigrants are inherently law breakers and are bad for the US). We all know in today's enlightened times, these arguments hold no water. Everything is a function of opportunities, and we have to open opportunities for 11M+ illegals and *ourselves* in the process.

Let's stop cribbing now. The CIR is a golden opportunity and it will happen only with Obama. No other president will ever care or push hard, so let's hope for the best.

We may not be citizens, but how are we not stakeholders? We meet the very definition of the word.

[seahawks2012]

I understand legalization & official recognition of illegal immigrations as it is important for various reasons. It also recognizes the need by some businesses (farming included) where they need the extra labor force. However, there are few conflicting points that I didn't see a lot of discussion on:

1. Why push for path to citizenship for legalized illegal immigrant? Why not instead give path to a valid (existing) visa that is sponsored by the corresponding businesses? Path to citizenship can be achieved by that valid visa.

2. "Minimum Wage" - The whole reason why some business hire the illegal immigrants is because they are ready to work for low cost. Now after legalizing the labor force, what happens to the "minimum wage" requirement? It is safe to say not all businesses would choose to pay for legalization as well as higher wages. This also means not all businesses are going to retain all the illegal labor force that they hire today.

3. Point 2 leads to the next obvious point: What happens to the legalized illegal immigrant who is not hired by businesses? What prevents the person from staying illegally beyond the valid visa duration? How is that situation different from what we have today?

4. Regarding order of getting green cards, it is certainly good that the CIR is ensuring "currently waiting" legal immigrants get green cards "before" the newly legalized immigrants. However, what happens to the "new" legal immigrants who apply for green card? Now are they going to be stuck behind the legalized illegal immigrants for the green card?

[gs1968]

To Seahawks2012
The previous attempt @ CIR in 2007 contained a separate category of visas called the Z visa and I have a feeling that a similar process may be used

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/visa-z.html

There is no way to find the back of the line as the line never ends!!

[pakkpk]

IEEE was lobbying against HR3012 from backdoor and now S.169!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...on-the-horizon

IEEE commented:“The businesses that will most benefit from an expansion of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies – businesses which exist to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign nationals and move jobs out of the country, and that is not the American way of immigrating citizens,” he continued.

Sen. Grassley:
A spokeswoman for Grassley said the Iowa Republican understands the need for high-skilled workers and noted that he tried to bring up a House-passed high-skilled immigration bill by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in the Senate last year. The move was blocked by Senate Democrats in part because they wanted to push comprehensive immigration reform in 2013.
Still, Grassley has concerns about the H-1B program.
“He has long argued for enhanced and expanded legal avenues for U.S. employers to hire foreign workers. However, he is just as concerned about including protections for American workers and reforms to root out fraud and abuse from the high-skilled visa programs, like the H-1B program,” the senator’s spokeswoman said. “He appreciates the proposals on the different aspects of immigration reform that are being put forward and will evaluate each one as it is introduced.”

[abcx13]

IEEE was lobbying against HR3012 from backdoor and now S.169!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...on-the-horizon

IEEE commented:“The businesses that will most benefit from an expansion of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies – businesses which exist to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign nationals and move jobs out of the country, and that is not the American way of immigrating citizens,” he continued.

Sen. Grassley:
A spokeswoman for Grassley said the Iowa Republican understands the need for high-skilled workers and noted that he tried to bring up a House-passed high-skilled immigration bill by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in the Senate last year. The move was blocked by Senate Democrats in part because they wanted to push comprehensive immigration reform in 2013.
Still, Grassley has concerns about the H-1B program.
“He has long argued for enhanced and expanded legal avenues for U.S. employers to hire foreign workers. However, he is just as concerned about including protections for American workers and reforms to root out fraud and abuse from the high-skilled visa programs, like the H-1B program,” the senator’s spokeswoman said. “He appreciates the proposals on the different aspects of immigration reform that are being put forward and will evaluate each one as it is introduced.”

I don't know...IEEE's and Grassley's stand is reasonable as long as they don't oppose GCs at the same time. IEEE is not -

“Any system for adding skilled workers to our economy should be based on citizenship. IEEE-USA supports provisions in S. 169 to expand green cards for advanced-degree STEM graduates of our higher-education institutions to become citizens. Doing so will strengthen our economy and create American jobs,” said IEEE-USA President Marc Apter in a statement to The Hill.

“The businesses that will most benefit from an expansion of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies – businesses which exist to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign nationals and move jobs out of the country, and that is not the American way of immigrating citizens,” he continued.

That seems fair to me. Desi consulting firms and IT outsourcing firms are clearly abusing the H1B program, and they are almost certainly not bringing in the best and the brightest. I think they should simply have a rule that discrimates against businesses over a certain size (say 50 employees) that have >= 50% H1Bs. That way you still allow the startup with two foreign co-founders, while blocking most Indian IT shops. I'm not necessarily against greater restrictions on H1Bs as long as they are accompanied with a clear path to GC and citizenship (say after a fixed time period as in every other country). That is in everybody's interest - even the H1B holder. Today too many H1Bs are abused as indentured servants - unable to switch jobs, unable to ask for a raise...

Another way for them to fix the 'H1B IT outsourcing hole' would be to exempt any company that simultaneously applies for a GC from the cap.

[abcx13]

BTW, I think the 300k might be a clever gambit. They may eventually decide to drop that and keep it at 65k or agree somewhere in between. Might just be a negotating ploy.

As long as the EB stuff gets through, who cares...seems nobody has complained about those provisions yet. All the noise is about H1B...

[gcq]

IEEE for a long time was an anti-immigrant organization. They used to oppose skilled immigration. It is only recently they changed their stance.

[rupen86]

IEEE was lobbying against HR3012 from backdoor and now S.169!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...on-the-horizon

IEEE commented:“The businesses that will most benefit from an expansion of the H-1B program are outsourcing companies – businesses which exist to replace American workers with lower-cost foreign nationals and move jobs out of the country, and that is not the American way of immigrating citizens,” he continued.

Sen. Grassley:
A spokeswoman for Grassley said the Iowa Republican understands the need for high-skilled workers and noted that he tried to bring up a House-passed high-skilled immigration bill by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in the Senate last year. The move was blocked by Senate Democrats in part because they wanted to push comprehensive immigration reform in 2013.
Still, Grassley has concerns about the H-1B program.
“He has long argued for enhanced and expanded legal avenues for U.S. employers to hire foreign workers. However, he is just as concerned about including protections for American workers and reforms to root out fraud and abuse from the high-skilled visa programs, like the H-1B program,” the senator’s spokeswoman said. “He appreciates the proposals on the different aspects of immigration reform that are being put forward and will evaluate each one as it is introduced.”

As long as Green card provisions are kept, we would be ok. When it comes to high skilled immigration, the only talk that I see is STEM graduates and still when it comes to job, most of the companies ask for experience and still we do not see any talk about experienced people waiting in the green card backlog.

[rupen86]

To Seahawks2012
The previous attempt @ CIR in 2007 contained a separate category of visas called the Z visa and I have a feeling that a similar process may be used

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/visa-z.html

There is no way to find the back of the line as the line never ends!!

If new category is created, it would break one of the principles outlined in the framework that they would go at the end of the line.

[qesehmk]

abcx - I said exactly what I felt and it applies to you without a doubt. You can gloss it with your cries - i could care less.

As per white people supporting immigrants - I can say without a doubt that yes majority actually are NOT racist - because if they were - America wouldn't be what it is today. You really need to read the history and get into American society a bit more before you write such stuff.

Call it racist, elitist, call it what you want. I will not be put in the same category as someone who jumped the fence illegally. Not all Mexicans become illegals - a lot of them choose to stay behind. You do a disservice to the ones who chose to follow the law. And you must be joking about white people standing by all immigrants...if that were the case, this bill would have been passed many years ago. This is not about cowardice or narrow-mindedness. The country simply cannot afford to pay for these 11m illegals. And even if they could, the opportunity cost is letting in 11m highly skilled people instead.

[rupen86]

Call it racist, elitist, call it what you want. I will not be put in the same category as someone who jumped the fence illegally. Not all Mexicans become illegals - a lot of them choose to stay behind. You do a disservice to the ones who chose to follow the law. And you must be joking about white people standing by all immigrants...if that were the case, this bill would have been passed many years ago. This is not about cowardice or narrow-mindedness. The country simply cannot afford to pay for these 11m illegals. And even if they could, the opportunity cost is letting in 11m highly skilled people instead.

Give the 11m illegals temporary working visas, but I don't see why a path to citizenship should be offered to someone who violated one of the most sacrosanct laws.



We may not be citizens, but how are we not stakeholders? We meet the very definition of the word.

Being in the same category would help us if they are at the end of the queue because then politicians would be forced to clear the existing queue. If there is separate queue, they do not have to care about existing queue.

[abcx13]

abcx - I said exactly what I felt and it applies to you without a doubt. You can gloss it with your cries - i could care less.

As per white people supporting immigrants - I can say without a doubt that yes majority actually are NOT racist - because if they were - America wouldn't be what it is today. You really need to read the history and get into American society a bit more before you write such stuff.

The facts belie your position - if the majority of people supported immigrants, we would already have had reform. All immigrants were ostracized at first - where do you think terms like spics, Micks, and pollocks came from? Or the N word for that matter. Did you think they were terms of endearment? Studying history is pointless when you want to ignore the facts.

And what do you propose as compensation for the Americans taking over the lands of the Native Indians and Mexicans? An open border? Free health care and education for all? How do you propose to pay for all/any of this? The fact that their lands were taken is water under the brigde, and you, the student of history, will doubtless know that this has been happening since time immemorial. Borders change. People live with it. People aren't jumping the fence because this is where they think they rightly belong. They are jumping it because they think the economic benefits outweigh the repercussions and consequences of getting caught. Granting amnesty will not change that. It will only make it worse (as Reagan's amnesty has). If the US actually cared about Mexico (which is where the majority of illegals come from) it would be much smarter to put an end to this asinine war on drugs which has ripped the country apart.

I have anything against anyone who migrates legally from Mexico or anywhere else. Yes, I have a problem with the illegals and I don't care where they come from (it so happens that a lot of them come from Mexico, but I think all of them should be treated the same).

P.S. - The expression is actually I couldn't care less. I could care less makes no logical sense if you think about it.

[pakkpk]

Immigration Lawyer's cry even though she is doling out hefty money from the H1B applications: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion...k_visas_fairly

[qesehmk]

That's faulty logic you have. According to your logic -
1. Americans are anti immigrant unless they already solved immigration problem.
2. All Americans past present future are racist because of things that happened in the past.

I think that's quite ridiculous.

There are people who were racists and are racists. And you know what those are more likely to oppose immigration - legal or otherwise. And interestingly you are drawing lines between immigrants - legal and illegal and opposing the "illegals". I certainly don't think one immigrant should bad mouth other one.

It's also funny how you used all the facts I talked about - why the case for illegal immigration is weak - upside down; to call all Americans anti-immigration while being an anti-immigrant yourself.

The facts belie your position - if the majority of people supported immigrants, we would already have had reform. All immigrants were ostracized at first - where do you think terms like spics, Micks, and pollocks came from? Or the N word for that matter. Did you think they were terms of endearment? Studying history is pointless when you want to ignore the facts.

And what do you propose as compensation for the Americans taking over the lands of the Native Indians and Mexicans? An open border? Free health care and education for all? How do you propose to pay for all/any of this? The fact that their lands were taken is water under the brigde, and you, the student of history, will doubtless know that this has been happening since time immemorial. Borders change. People live with it. People aren't jumping the fence because this is where they think they rightly belong. They are jumping it because they think the economic benefits outweigh the repercussions and consequences of getting caught. Granting amnesty will not change that. It will only make it worse (as Reagan's amnesty has). If the US actually cared about Mexico (which is where the majority of illegals come from) it would be much smarter to put an end to this asinine war on drugs which has ripped the country apart.

I have anything against anyone who migrates legally from Mexico or anywhere else. Yes, I have a problem with the illegals and I don't care where they come from (it so happens that a lot of them come from Mexico, but I think all of them should be treated the same).

P.S. - The expression is actually I couldn't care less. I could care less makes no logical sense if you think about it.

[pdfeb09]

The facts belie your position - if the majority of people supported immigrants, we would already have had reform. All immigrants were ostracized at first - where do you think terms like spics, Micks, and pollocks came from? Or the N word for that matter. Did you think they were terms of endearment? Studying history is pointless when you want to ignore the facts.

And what do you propose as compensation for the Americans taking over the lands of the Native Indians and Mexicans? An open border? Free health care and education for all? How do you propose to pay for all/any of this? The fact that their lands were taken is water under the brigde, and you, the student of history, will doubtless know that this has been happening since time immemorial. Borders change. People live with it. People aren't jumping the fence because this is where they think they rightly belong. They are jumping it because they think the economic benefits outweigh the repercussions and consequences of getting caught. Granting amnesty will not change that. It will only make it worse (as Reagan's amnesty has). If the US actually cared about Mexico (which is where the majority of illegals come from) it would be much smarter to put an end to this asinine war on drugs which has ripped the country apart.

I have anything against anyone who migrates legally from Mexico or anywhere else. Yes, I have a problem with the illegals and I don't care where they come from (it so happens that a lot of them come from Mexico, but I think all of them should be treated the same).

P.S. - The expression is actually I couldn't care less. I could care less makes no logical sense if you think about it.

Dude .. first of all, you need to calm down. From a lot of your previous posts, it appears that you are kind of a trigger-happy guy, ready to go off on anyone who thinks differently than you.


Second, when you say "put an end to this asinine war of drugs", what do you really mean and what do you think will the consequences be?

"Yes, I have a problem with the illegals and I don't care where they come from (it so happens that a lot of them come from Mexico, but I think all of them should be treated the same)."

Legal and illegal is defined by the congress. You are here for economic reasons too. Lets face it, you wouldn't be here for any other reason. You are mad because it takes a long time for the system to recognize you as a permenant resident. What if the congress tomorrow decides that anybody in your shoes is considered illegal because you are hurting the job prospects of the current citizens? I guess you would hate yourself too ... yeah, I know rediculous, right?

PS: Please read your own words before pointing out the syntatic or grammatical mistakes in others' posts. Read the line in RED. I make a lot of them so don't go off on me with that .. just try to get the message. In these forums, "you" "could" really "care less" about the propriety of the sentences.

[rupen86]

Immigration Lawyer's cry even though she is doling out hefty money from the H1B applications: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion...k_visas_fairly

I agree with the part that just completing degree course should not be enough for getting green card. That being the case, there would be influx of colleges and universities and influx of students whose purpose is to get green card. If it was to be done, it should be limited to top 50 or 100 universities.

[abcx13]

That's faulty logic you have. According to your logic -
1. Americans are anti immigrant unless they already solved immigration problem.
2. All Americans past present future are racist because of things that happened in the past.

I think that's quite ridiculous.

There are people who were racists and are racists. And you know what those are more likely to oppose immigration - legal or otherwise. And interestingly you are drawing lines between immigrants - legal and illegal and opposing the "illegals". I certainly don't think one immigrant should bad mouth other one.

It's also funny how you used all the facts I talked about - why the case for illegal immigration is weak - upside down; to call all Americans anti-immigration while being an anti-immigrant yourself.

Perhaps read your own posts before replying? You made a big deal about how America is a nation of immigrants, yada yada yada. I was just pointing out that it has always also had a racist element to it. There was segregation in this country until the 60s and 70s. Some of those Americans are still alive and still feel the same way. People on this thread have called some Congressmen such as Steve King and Grassley racist. The fact that the birther debate became so big suggests that nationalism still plays a big role in the national identity even though this is supposedly a country of immigrants. Also if the population was so friendly and open to immigration, there would not be annual quotas or country caps (the latter are by definition discriminatory, if not racist).

By the way, I didn't know that I had to support illegal immigration to support immigration. I'm sorry - thanks for setting me straight. I guess I must not support immigration since I'm only in favor of legal immigration and not in favor of giving amnesty and a path to citizenship to people who broke the law. If you break the law today and work without an EAD even for a day, you are in violation of your status, ineligible for reentry, and can get deported. But when 11m people do it for years, they get amnesty and citizenship. See the idiocy?

[abcx13]

Legal and illegal is defined by the congress.

Um yes, as are all laws. Your point is?

You are here for economical reasons too. Lets face it, you wouldn't be here for any other reason. You are mad because it takes a long time for the system to recognize you as a permenant resident. What if the congress tomorrow decides that anybody in your shoes is considered illegal because you are hurting the job prospects of the current citizens? I guess you would hate yourself too ... yeah, I know rediculous, right?

This will probably be my last on the subject. If you guys don't want to draw a line between legals and illegals, that's your prerogative. There's an old saying - people get the government they deserve - so if you want hitch your wagon to the illegals because it is politically expedient, well, you can't expect any less from politicians (and I realize you didn't vote for these guys, but you probably will someday).

My 'madness' has nothing to do with my wait. It has to do with principles. I would feel the same way if I got my GC tomorrow. I am mad because both the letter and the spirit of the law are being cast aside (as they often are these days with Obama), because lawbreakers are being rewarded for breaking the law (just as Wall Street was), because these illegals will be a net drain on the exchequer, i.e. taxpayers like me and you, and because of the opportunity cost of not letting in more qualified people or people who haven't broken the law (yes, that includes low-skilled/low-wage immigrants who would be eligible for the temporary agricultural program, which this country does need).

And yes, if Congress tomorrow decided that H1Bs are illegal, I would go back. You can stay here and hope for amnesty. And since they can't make ex-post facto laws and retroactively change my legal status, I don't know why I would hate myself. While illegals and legals are both here for economic reasons, Congress and the country has decided that legal immigration is a net boost to the economy as opposed to illegal immigration. So there is a nuance there that you are overlooking when you say both come for economic reasons.

I don't see what is wrong with asking for legals to be placed ahead in the queue or not to offer citizenship for illegals. So far I have not seen anyone except you guys say that illegals and legals should be considered alike.

Second, when you say "put an end to this asinine war of drugs", what do you really mean and what do you think will the consequences be?

Look at all the drug violence in Mexico. Why do you think it happens? Where do you think the demand for drugs comes from? What do you think will happen if marijuana, a major source of the cartel's profits, is decriminalized? The consequences will be that the USG will spend less on fighting drugs in the US and overseas, stop running ops like Fast and Furious, drug violence in Mexico will go down, and maybe, just maybe, the USG could take the money they had allocated to fighting drugs and spend a part of it on education in Mexico so there are improved opportunities there and less illegal immigration (migration flows have already reversed given the poor economic climate in the US). Of course, none of this will happen because it makes too much sense.

[abcx13]

I agree with the part that just completing degree course should not be enough for getting green card. That being the case, there would be influx of colleges and universities and influx of students whose purpose is to get green card. If it was to be done, it should be limited to top 50 or 100 universities.

I think what all these lawyers fail to see is that in all likelihood the STEM GC will be linked to the current PERM system that requires an employer to petition for a pre-arranged job. It would be stupid to dole out STEM GCs without restricting it to the top 100 unis. Otherwise everyone will end up at TriValley University...

[GhostWriter]

Reid seems optimistic.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-congress.html

[qesehmk]

My last on this one too. It's ok to draw line between legal - illegal - but not to the extent where one immigrant group starts fighting other one which is exactly what anti-immigrants want.

If we allow legal vs illegal then tomorrow there will be EB2 vs EB3 and India vs ROW and all kinds of differences come up. So - be patient, be respectful and work unitedly towards everybody's well being. That's all I wanted to convey.

This will probably be my last on the subject. If you guys don't want to draw a line between legals and illegals, that's your prerogative. ....

[pdfeb09]

Um yes, as are all laws. Your point is?

Yes, I know that. However, these (laws) keep changing with times as they should.

This will probably be my last on the subject. If you guys don't want to draw a line between legals and illegals, that's your prerogative. There's an old saying - people get the government they deserve - so if you want hitch your wagon to the illegals because it is politically expedient, well, you can't expect any less from politicians (and I realize you didn't vote for these guys, but you probably will someday). My 'madness' has nothing to do with my wait. It has to do with principles. I would feel the same way if I got my GC tomorrow. I am mad because both the letter and the spirit of the law are being cast aside (as they often are these days with Obama), because lawbreakers are being rewarded for breaking the law (just as Wall Street was), because these illegals will be a net drain on the exchequer, i.e. taxpayers like me and you, and because of the opportunity cost of not letting in more qualified people or people who haven't broken the law (yes, that includes low-skilled/low-wage immigrants who would be eligible for the temporary agricultural program, which this country does need).

It is not about drawing a line that I was concerned about. There should be a line drawn between those who follow the current laws and those who decide to flout them. The main thing is to realize what the crime has been, what the intentions, motivations and the context had been before it was comitted. I doubt these guys risked what they did just for the economic reasons (min wage + the sword of persecution hanging over their and their families' heads.. ). The main thing is, let us not go overboard in criticizing these guys just because they do not have the documents. It is an appropriate demand to help the legal community before the undocumented ones, but let us not be a voice that says they should not be helped at all ! Any crimes besides "jumping the fence" should be dealt with in accordance to the laws meant for that crime. No questions about that !

And yes, if Congress tomorrow decided that H1Bs are illegal, I would go back.

So will I. The questions was not about what will you do. The question was would you hate a person just because a law says he is illegal, even though the law could later be rescinded or amended to include that person legally. How has the person, you so hate, changed? It should be the crime and its intensity that should draw a forceful reaction from us (rape, murder, even financial crimes that render hundreds and thousands if not millions of people holding the bag - hang them !). Trying to get a better life for the next generation ... slap-em-on-the-wrist ..

"Congress and the country has decided that legal immigration is a net boost to the economy as opposed to illegal immigration."

I have so many things to say about this statement, however, the most relevant is - illegal immigrants, those who do not involve themselves in other crimes, do end up working really hard and supporting the economy at the lower rungs of the society. Let us not underestimate the impact of the skills they bring to this country however manual and lower level they may be considered to be.

Look at all the drug violence in Mexico. Why do you think it happens? Where do you think the demand for drugs comes from? What do you think will happen if marijuana, a major source of the cartel's profits, is decriminalized? The consequences will be that the USG will spend less on fighting drugs in the US and overseas, stop running ops like Fast and Furious, drug violence in Mexico will go down, and maybe, just maybe, the USG could take the money they had allocated to fighting drugs and spend a part of it on education in Mexico so there are improved opportunities there and less illegal immigration (migration flows have already reversed given the poor economic climate in the US). Of course, none of this will happen because it makes too much sense.

The demand comes from the USA and a significant part of the "War on Drugs" is trying to control that demand. The part which you have not mentioned here is education, rehabilitation and retricting the usage/transportation through the enforcement of the laws within the boundaries of the USA.

If you think that only the parts I mentioned above are enough and the US government does not need to pro-actively go after the source, then we differ !

If marijuana is decriminalized, it will help cut down the income from it for the cartels, however, the other and more harmful drugs will become their main source. Either you have to legalize all the drugs, however harmful they may be, or draw a line somewhere.

I agree with you that the money could be spent on education to get better results in Mexico, but it is the corrupt government officials in Mexico that help this drug business. It is not in their best interest to make the education and other opportunities available to the people. When US is faced with this, it tries to do what it can to go after the cartels while keeping the government there as pliable to their requests as possible. I do not think it is that easy to solve this issue. If it were, it would have been done by now.

My last on all this too ...

[abcx13]

^^Agree with most things including education, rehab, etc. in the US when it comes to drugs. And yes, I do believe illegals ought to be helped (I support the DREAM act and all that) but the path to citizenship rankles me. As does the fact that their interests seem to take priority over those of legals.

Sorry, I know I said it was my last, but there was a relevant piece in today's paper:

Crovitz: The Economics of Immigration
Adding more skilled workers would bring in an estimated $100 billion in federal revenues over a decade, largely from increased income taxes.

by L. GORDON CROVITZ
Feb. 3, 2013

For the first time in a generation, the debate over immigration has turned to the opportunities, not the burdens. Washington might finally deliver immigration reform, especially as politicians realize that adding more skilled workers is the fastest way to boost the economy and avoid a fiscal crisis.

Silicon Valley is the poster child for today's dysfunctional immigration policy. Foreign technologists trained in the U.S. are routinely denied work visas and return home to become successful entrepreneurs in China and India. For many years, half of Silicon Valley startups have had an immigrant founder, but this trend is in decline as fewer foreigners can find a foothold on the path to citizenship.

Steve Jobs famously turned against Barack Obama in 2011 when the president wouldn't sponsor a law to award work visas to foreigners who earn advanced degrees in technology and the sciences, despite the shortage of native-born skilled workers. "The president is very smart, but he kept explaining to us reasons why things can't get done," Jobs told biographer Walter Isaacson. "It infuriates me."

The last time the U.S. reformed immigration policy was in 1986, when President Reagan created a political coalition by focusing on immigrants as assets, not as liabilities, a sharp contrast with Mitt Romney's suggestion last year that they should pursue "self-deportation." President Obama last week embraced postelection bipartisan reform in a speech using the words "economy" or "economic" 10 times. Immigration, he said, "keeps our workforce young; it keeps our country on the cutting edge." Sending skilled graduates back home "is not how you grow new industries in America. That's how you give new industries to our competitors. That's why we need comprehensive immigration reform."

Enlarge Image

We also need a comprehensive rethinking of the purpose of the immigration laws. It's not widely understood that for more than a century the main goal of the immigration laws has been to set racial and ethnic quotas—not to attract the best and brightest from around the world.

Since 1899, immigrants have been designated by "race or people." Until the 1920s, there were few limits aside from the ban on laborers under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. That changed with the Immigration Act of 1924, which created the federal Quota Board to "preserve the ideal of American homogeneity" by setting quotas that favored Protestant Europeans. "The calculus of numerical restriction in the 1920s was aimed at engineering the racial composition of the nation; it had nothing to do with the economics of absorption," wrote historian Mae Ngai in her 2004 book on immigration policy, "Impossible Subjects."

Many parts of the immigration system are still based on quotas. Visas for permanent residency are capped, so that no country can have more than 7% each year. There is an annual limit of 140,000 green cards for employment-based immigrants, so the ceiling means that while immigrants from small countries like Belgium and Guinea have a good chance, the waiting list for citizens of populous countries like China and India can last for decades.

More broadly, of all the developed countries, the U.S. puts the lowest priority on potential economic benefits when reviewing prospective immigrants, according to Pia Orrenius, an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. She estimates that of the 1.1 million green cards issued every year, 85% are to family members or for humanitarian purposes. Only 15% are for highly skilled immigrants based on employment, and half of those go to the workers' spouses and children. Australia, Britain and Canada are outcompeting the U.S. for skilled people by using a point system based on immigrants' education and ability to invest or start companies.

The parts of the U.S. system that are designed to boost the economy need updating. The H-1B visa program, established in 1990, creates 65,000 visas a year for highly skilled workers. But the demand for skilled technologists has grown so much since then that in some years this quota has been filled within hours. No wonder Steve Jobs was impatient.

Smarter immigration policy would give less-skilled immigrants a path to citizenship that could include language and civics requirements. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that legalizing the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. would boost revenues by $48 billion over 10 years while costing $23 billion in increased public services.

Former CBO official Arlene Holen estimates in a Technology Policy Institute paper that adding more skilled workers would bring in $100 billion in over a decade, largely from increased income taxes.

It's time to focus on the economic opportunities that immigrants can bring to the country, regardless of their origin. That would be good both for American economics and for American values.

A version of this article appeared February 4, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Economics of Immigration.

I guess I was wrong and at least according to the CBO, the illegals will not be a net drain on the taxpayer though it seems a little hard to believe. Perhaps they are factoring in a temporary boost from back taxes?

Also some interesting rebuttals to Q's contention about this being a nation of immigrants and what not. Racism was codified into the laws and still is to this day with country caps...