"Not only do they need to fix things for people already here, or find some way to do it, there’s got to be a larger way to fix the system in the first place... Because if it wasn’t so cumbersome, if there wasn’t such a long wait, if it wasn’t so difficult to get in, we wouldn’t have the other problems that we have (with people living here illegally)."
July 3, 2013
Scott Walker endorses path to citizenship.
"If people want to come here and work hard and benefit, I don’t care whether they come from Mexico or Ireland or Germany or Canada or South Africa or anywhere else... I want them here."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
64 comments:
The problem is not in America, but in Mexico, and other nations in Central and South America, Africa, etc. The solution is not to facilitate immigration, but to address the causes which motivate it.
Why it's downright unpatriotic to suggest the 300,000,000 bursting at the seams fat dude should take a pause rather than add another 100,000,000 around his waist.
AKA, I'm running for President.
Legal immigrants not from Mexico had to spend thousands of dollars in fees to Homeland Security and in most cases, lawyers, and if they make any mistakes they get rejected and deported.
Illegal immigrants from Mexico will be waved through. One more time. The legal immigrants not from Mexico thank you for the middle finger.
And not all the illegals will take advantage of it, because if you gain legal status, you have to be paid minimum wage and your employer has to pay your payroll taxes, so they might as well hire an American at that point--your value as an employee has just disappeared.
One more round of kabuki dances like the last three.
That isn't to say I don't agree with him, but we need to fix the problem with our immigration system before we allow people who broke the law and continue to break the law a pass.
There already is a path to citizenship.
walker walker walker....
see.. this is why we can't have nice things.
Bursting at the seams? lol
A significant number of the Hispanic illegal immigrants have no intention or desire to become American citizens. All they want is the ability to stay here indefinitely and collect benefits. If they can remain Mexican/Honduran?etc so much the better.
The money line, "a substantial number of Wisconsin farms depend on migrant workers".
You can want a better immigration system without wanting to import 35,000,000 welfare cases.
And I don't see the word, security, in that piece, one way or the other.
I liked Bush's guest worker idea... get people legal status and encourage them to go home again.
I'm not running for president and see this as common sense. We want hard-working productive people here. Legally.
And that's the rub: how to do it legally without creating bad incentives and causing harm.
It's a difficult question, but Walker's is a sensible position.
If Walker thinks this gets him the Hispanic vote, he might want to consider this:
Rubio, "their" Republican only gets 28% of the Hispanic vote against Hillary!.
Non-committal word salad from Walker, gets trashed in the comments.
"Why,why, why are these conservatives dropping like flies? Why the sudden change? What does the administration "have" on these people?"
LOL
"If people want to come here and work hard and benefit, I don’t care whether they come from Mexico or Ireland or Germany or Canada or South Africa or anywhere else... I want them here."
You'd think that Scott Walker would know that we actually have a legal immmigration program that already deals with this exact scenario.
And by the way, conservatives support this program.
I agree with Walker. Fix the system and welcome those who want to come and work hard. That has been the history of this country ( of course there has always been opposition too). The Germans adapted and contributed, the Irish adapted and contributed, the Italians adapted and contributed, etc., etc.
The welfare problem is just as severe among the native-born as the foreign-born; but that is another issue.
Yeah, but the Demos don't like anything legal.
You can't steal elections and keep people enslaved legally.
Sigh. Of course its difficult to get into the US - because LOTS of people want to come here.
When the rest of the world ceases to immigrate to the US in such large numbers, I'll bet the process would get much easier.
When supply far exceeds demand, the process of obtaining whatever is desired is bound to get more complicated and slow due to the crushing competition. Case in point: The Microsoft hiring process. That's a sausage you don't want to see being made. What a ridiculous, grueling process, but people all over the world want to work there, so they can get away with it.
Its almost as if there were a universal law of application processes: the more out of whack the supply of applicants against the demand, the more convoluted the application process.
RINO!
It helps to fix the employment for the expandable citizens first.
http://www.readability.com/read?url=https%3A//www.propublica.org/article/the-expendables-how-the-temps-who-power-corporate-giants-are-getting-crushe
Hmmm, has he signed that abortion bill yet? Maybe he will veto it.
Gracias, Patroness Walker.
That seems pragmatic.
The Cap Times will say it's just not as extreme as Walker usually is.
Inga said...
RINO!
No, Walker isn't advocating a sell-out.
When Chuckie Schumer calls him one of "his" Republicans, then he's a RINO.
BTW, you never told us what you thought of the pro-abortion types down in TX screaming, "Hail, Satan".
Romney didn't lose because of the Hispanic vote.
We can have open borders or a welfare state.
SteveR said...
Romney didn't lose because of the Hispanic vote.
Even if the count was honest (if!), he would have lost even with 70% of the Hispanic vote IIRC.
However, if he had gotten (I believe it's) 15% more of the WHITE vote, he'd have won.
And that's with a crooked count.
He couldn't even win the "count" in his own house...was it crooked too?
Well, so much for Walker. I'll put him over in the old stack with Rubio. And I had such high hopes for him. He needs to come down south from time to time. Texas, that is.
It's insulting to lump people that came from Ireland and the continent of Europe, crossing an ocean, with people who cross practically nonexistent borders.
It's insulting to my intelligence.
Walker drank the kool aid.
AKA, I'm running for President.
and how does this help him? I know that's what's being said but I don't get it...
If walker actually has presidential ambitions he should take a long hard look at Marco Rubio recent self-immolation.
I suspect hey're all being briefed by the *powers that be* that shamnesty is the only way to save the economy, or save entitlements, or something.
That's why they're all turning into zombies.
You reward illegal entry, you encourage more of it.
You reward illegal entry and don't fix the border that largely created the problem in the first place, you encourage more of it.
Its not complicated.
They are going to keep coming and coming and coming until we stop it.
Republican voters get sold down the river - Watch#1776
The disagreement is not over whether those already here, and especially those who have been here for a long time, will eventually have their status legalized. It's a dispute over what comes first. Dems want to deal with regularizing the many already here, whether or not they also deal effectively with stopping the flow of new illegal entrants; House Reps want to make sure that the flow of new illegal entrants is effectively stopped before dealing with those already here. The Dems say they have dealt the problem of new illegal entrants, but they've only convinced those for whom that issue is, at best, secondary (i.e., mostly themselves). The Reps say that they will deal with the population of illegal entrants already here once the border is secured, but they haven';t convinced the Dems on that. There are ways to accommodate both policies, but I doubt very much that either side will find that path.
We are trillions in debt and we want to absorb more responsibilities.
It doesn't make sense.
machine said...
He couldn't even win the "count" in his own house...was it crooked too?
No, just you.
PS It wasn't an election, doofus.
We don't want hard-working people. We want educated people with high-level skills. We have enough illiterate peasants.
@Palladian:We want educated people with high-level skills.
Americans who have high-level skills might not want their salaries bid down. Did you ask them?
Americans with high-level skills might like to have illiterate peasants immigrate en masse--the price of their labor goes down, so Americans with high-level skills can focus on them instead of yard work and child care. Did you ask them?
and how does this help him? I know that's what's being said but I don't get it...
It keeps the Chamber of Commerce money spigots open. The big GOP bundlers/donors just lurrrve them some illegal cheap labor that they can exploit off the books.
The grass roots Tea Party types? Fuck 'em.
and how does this help him? I know that's what's being said but I don't get it...
It keeps the Chamber of Commerce money spigots open. The big GOP bundlers/donors just lurrrve them some illegal cheap labor that they can exploit off the books.
The grass roots Tea Party types? Fuck 'em.
Another reason why I like Scott Walker
This is quite a disappointment. Not a deal breaker but a very bad indication of things to come.
There is a Republican segment which supports immigration reform. They claim that the influx of young immigrants strengthens America's long-term economic prospects.
Which sounds good on paper, but also sounds like the ObamaCare numbers by which we were going to take care of more people yet spend less money on medical care. Somehow that's not going according to plan.
I'd have to see this claim stand up under scrutiny and also explain how it doesn't turn America into a one-party country.
Why the "pathway to citizenship"? We can have a vast array of good and meaningful immigration reform without it.
We can increase work visas; beef up idenitification of immigrant workers, with biometrics and digitalized identification materials. We can give immigrant workers drivers licenses (and increase citizenship identification at elections, since non-citizens will have licenses). We can do so much, to give people the chance to work in the United States legally.
"Citizenship" is another matter altogether. I am sympathetic to immigrant workers who want to work and earn for their families. But I don't think the vast number of Mexicans and South Americans, or South Asians, are so interested in American citizenship, except as a means to a legal life in America. Where they want to work.
It is the Democrats alone, who are making the "path to citizenship" a major stumbling block.
Walker should not play the Democrats' game.
Jay Leno said it best: When the public kerfuffle arose over the term "illegal immigrant," Leno suggested a better name. "Undocumented Democrats."
"I agree with Walker. Fix the system and welcome those who want to come and work hard. That has been the history of this country ( of course there has always been opposition too). The Germans adapted and contributed, the Irish adapted and contributed, the Italians adapted and contributed, etc., "
and we have a legal immigration policy that allows for this. Also, if we had a worker program that allowed for people to work but not be one citizens per se, who would have a problem with it?
The issue is, one what jobs would the be doing? American jobs, or jobs tht Americans won't do? If the latter, why would we make them citizens? Because then they won't be doing those jobs anymore, and we'd need more guest workers to do the jobs tht Americans won't do.
And two, have you seen the unemployment rate lately? have you read the stories about people getting out of college and not being able to find jobs? So the solution is to add 15 million people (most of them low skilled) to compete for jobs? does that make any sense.
I honestly don't think that unemployment has much of anything to do with the total number of people here. Yes, I suppose that an influx would create at least a temporary over-supply of labor but it *ought* to even out.
What is keeping unemployment so high is that everyone in power just now is trying, on purpose, to keep energy as expensive as possible. We *could* have the immediate jobs attached to pipeline building and (more significantly) fracking in California (which would logically do the same for the California economy as happened in North Dakota except on a California vs. North Dakota difference in scale.)
And we *could* be building nuclear plants. We *could* be encouraging coal.
And low-as-possible energy prices would certainly open up opportunities for businesses to expand and innovate and hire.
But noooooo. Low energy prices would encourage energy consumption and it's far more important that we reduce our footprint... build less, make less, use less, consume less, HIRE less.
Let us please not blame migrant farm workers or illegal aliens for the fact that our current government is TRYING to keep the economy from growing because... Gaia.
(Actually on the farm work thing... I knew lots of teenagers who worked as corn toppers and bean weeders and any number of annoying summertime farm laborers... in the 1980s. Laws now pretty much prohibit anyone under 18 from working with power equipment on a farm unless your family owns it. Would teenagers really not do the work that teenagers used to be able to get a job doing if they had that option for summer employment?)
Scott Walker Aide: Governor Didn't Endorse Senate Immigration Bill
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/scott-walker-aide-governor-didnt-endorse-senate-immigration-bill_738620.html
Whaddya expect? He's practically an illiterate himself.
and another one bites the dust.
And furthermore, why can't any major political figure articulate the point that it is OK to expect people who come to the United States to ENTER THE COUNTRY LEGALLY. The people here HAVE A PATHWAY already, they can go home and USE THE EXISTING SYSTEM.
What we have now does not work because the Feds REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE LAW.
Synova said,
". Would teenagers really not do the work that teenagers used to be able to get a job doing if they had that option for summer employment?)"
Every one I know wants to work.
Contrary to jr565, the purpose of our legal immigration system is not to bring people in, it's to keep people out.
When my great-grandparents arrived here, there were no immigration laws. That didn't make them illegal immigrants. It meant that anyone who came here was legit. You don't need a system to bring people in, you only need it to keep them out.
As for unemployment and immigration, here's a little thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that you expel everyone from the country except for one man. Will that remaining guy have a job? Doing what? How well will he live? Will he be his own doctor, his own farmer, his own rancher, his own electrical engineer, his own carpenter, his own tailor, his own mechanic, his own metallurgist, his own chemist, etc.? We all specialize in only one or a few kinds of production because it is so much more efficient to do so. But as Adam Smith said, the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. More people here means a bigger market and hence a more efficient economy.
It's true that paying people to come here and not work is stupid. But then, paying people who are already here to not work is also stupid. When I see people opposing one but not the other, it does lead me to wonder what's really motivating them.
I want unlimited work visas and employer verification. The current illegals can apply for work visas.
Jeff, I think that Milton Freidman held the answer to your questions.
Milton Freidman was famous for a great many things, including his economist's view of immigration, both legal and illegal.
Freidman had nothing against immigration; he regarded it as an essential good in free economies.
But Friedman knew that a country could not maintain open borders as well as a generous welfare state simultaneously.
And this is precisely where the current "Pathway to citizenship" chatter needs to be challenged.
Writing about Milton Friedman in the Wall Street Journal, here is Stephen Moore:
****
Friedman also had an unorthodox opinion of illegal immigration that many of the restrictionists who are so eager to cite him might find troubling. "Look, for example, to the obvious, immediate and practical example of illegal Mexican immigration," he said in "What is America?" a 1978 lecture available on YouTube. "Now that Mexican immigration over the border is a good thing. It is a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It is a good thing for the United States, and it is a good thing for the citizens of the country."
Then came this zinger: "But it is only a good thing if it is illegal." Why? Because the illegals "don't qualify for welfare and social security" and other government benefits.
His point was that as long as immigrants are attracted to the U.S. for jobs and economic opportunity, they are contributors—but not necessarily so if the welcome mat comes with government benefits that are paid for by taxpayers. If they cannot gain access to the entitlement state, Friedman said, the country benefits.
The 1996 welfare reform, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, imposed tight restrictions on welfare benefits for new immigrants. Welfare caseloads among the foreign born fell by half, although some of those rules have been eroded—for instance, by ending some of the work requirements—under President Barack Obama, whose economists believe that welfare is a fiscal stimulus.
Republicans and conservatives might want to coalesce around a position of tight welfare and generous immigration rules. That is something Milton Friedman would no doubt regard as the ideal outcome. As another late great economist—William Niskanen, a member of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers and chairman of the Cato Institute—once put it: "Better to build a wall around the welfare state than the country."
****
Jeff; when your grandparents arrived in America as immigrants, and were freely given access, America wasn't a European-style welfare state.
Chuck, I am second to no one in my admiration of Milton Friedman. But your solution is untenable.
You want to restrict welfare state benefits to legal immigrants and citizens, and not do much else to discourage illegal immigrants. The problem with this is that you are effectively saying that we are not all equal before the law. Some are more equal than others.
I'd go along with this as a second-best solution, but I don't think it will work in the long run. It will lead to an ever-expanding morass of rules, regulations and exceptions as people try to ameliorate the inherent unfairness of the system, and then other people try to take advantage of the exceptions, and so on.
The real problem is the welfare state itself. Greece is telling us that it eventually falls apart. But nobody seems to be listening.
Walker can fly in (and keep in Wisconsin) all the illegals that he wants. We in Texas do not want them crossing the border into Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California. They are a plague.
The vast majority of illegals are not agricultural workers, but rather day labor in construction, compete for factory work, or simply free-load on American society. Many turn to robbery, burglary, kidnapping, home invasions, etc. because we make it so easy for them to do, and punishments are so slight.
Walker looked pretty good until he said this, but he has lost me completely now. Keep all your illegals in Wisconsin only!!
The only thing that is "broken" about the immigration system is the ENFORCEMENT aspect. We have a system on the books; we had a much better one, more beneficial to the US, before Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Reform Act. That is when immigration became a gift to aliens, rather than a benefit to the US. We need to revert to selective immigration and STRICT ENFORCEMENT!!!
The only thing that is "broken" about the immigration system is the ENFORCEMENT aspect. We have a system on the books; we had a much better one, more beneficial to the US, before Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Reform Act. That is when immigration became a gift to aliens, rather than a benefit to the US. We need to revert to selective immigration and STRICT ENFORCEMENT!!!
Post a Comment