Iowa City schools won’t apply for federal grant
Authorities investigating possible connection between abduction cases
Iowa Legislature 2013 adjournment in sight, leaders say
Oklahoma tornado death toll currently 24, not 51, medical examiner says
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
Should some version of amnesty be part of national immigration policy reform?
Related Stories
When senators on both sides of the aisle announced the outline of a comprehensive, sweeping immigration deal on Monday, anti-immigration groups immediately slammed the deal as amnesty for 11 million immigrants.
Numbers USA, a grassroots lobbyist, issued an “Amnesty Alert” and appealed to its members to lobby their elected officials. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) slammed Sen. Rubio, one of the eight senators who crafted and will endorse the deal, for his “amnesty blueprint.”
“The only force strong enough to slow down the amnesty juggernaut is the voice of the American people,” Numbers USA wrote in an email plea to its members. “For those of you who were part of our team in 2007, it’s deja vu all over again. You know the drill. For the hundreds of thousands of you who have joined us since the defeat of the 2007 amnesty, you are needed today more than ever. Together, we can stop this.”
What do you think of the critics? Should some version of amnesty be part of national immigration policy reform?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Some call it “amnesty”. Others call it a “pathway to citizenship”. Regardless of what you call it, I wish those who oppose it would spell out what they would do with the 11 million undocumented people in this country. They tell us what they are against, but they never say what they are for.
Do they advocate deportation for all of them? If so, say so.
Do they advocate allowing them to stay in our country in a permanent second class status? Don’t we have some important documents that say “all men are created equal”?
If you oppose a pathway to citizenship then you have an obligation to say what you are for.
“spell out what they would do with the 11 million undocumented people in this country”
Well that’s easy deport them back to where they came from and the problem is solved. That will give some of the unemployed a chance at a job. Oh, this does coincide with reducing unemployment benefits.
So, you really advocate deporting 11 million. Do you realize how impractical, undoable and damaging that would be?
Alabama agriculture is already in big trouble because they can’t harvest their crops. The state took action that is hostile to undocumented workers.
Why are the anti-amnesty people not talking about their pro-deportation position?
Rich first some history. This is 1986 redo. It failed. The politicians lied to us. Control the border. Demonstrate compantancy for two years, then path to legalization of their residency here.
After we control the border, illegals will have 6 months to identify themselves, Any person, adult or child identified after the 6 months, will be adjudicated and deported.Those that are identified will be biometricly ID’ed, and they go to the back of the line for green cards, after paying back taxes and penalties. once residence is legalized they are allowed to work and pay taxes. Not allowed to own private property, vote, run for public office, or receive govt assistance, grants, loans,etc.
I dont see how any plan is going to work when the federal govt wont secure the boarder and states arent allowed.
The republican ideas on the illegal aliens has been the only thing they were ever correct on and now they are going to change their views to pander a few votes. There should be no amnesty and the ones here should be deported back to their own country.
Dear Lord, we actually agree on something. There’s hope for you yet.
Well if i was a one issue person like the gun nuts and the anti abortion people, i would be a republcian on this issue alone. but i look at the whole picture and the republicans were only correct on this one up till now. but the fact is even if they do legalize the illegals, unless they change their views on all the other issues too, the one time illegals will be like the American people of non high finances and still vote for democrats. So they need to be deported and come across legally or not come across at all. they are too willing to work for chump change wages and take jobs from americans who want a decent pay for a decent days work. Like it used to be in the meat factories like Wllson and Rath of years long gone by.
I recall hearing several years ago an interview with a contractor who had a lot of immigrant workers and he was asked why he didn’t hire more American citizens. He replied that he’d tried but had frequent problems with workers quitting and high absenteeism. He followed that by (in so many words) saying “these guys show up, they stay, and they work hard.”
Deja vu anyone? The senate outline seems hauntingly familiar to that of Bush in 07. But then again it was a Bush idea and a Reagan before that. Most recent history shows it was only after Marco Rubio was alarmingly close to announcing his legislation in the works did it even appear on Obamas radar. I don’t recall Obama pursuing the issue when dems held a majority. However, he cleverly used his executive order months before his election to garner the votes of the low informed.
They should pass legislation one step at a time. As the unintended consequences arise, as they always do, it can be debated and worked out. Securing our borders should be the first step, then work on the rest.
I would also like to see some steps taken to get rid of the “anchor baby” provision currently in place.
Sue,
1) There is no “anchor baby” provision and never has been. Check Wikipedia on this one. Politifact also dismissed this claim. It’s been dismissed all over the place and Senator Lindsey Graham should be ashamed of himself
2) Over a million and a half people have been deported in the last 4 years. The yearly average has been 400,000, far more than the number deported during the Bush administration and higher than at any time in our nation’s history. From PolitiFact: “If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages, it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents”
3) Border patrols have been increased. There are currently 20,000 patrol agents—most of them along the Mexican American border. That’s more agents than at any time since President Wilson sent troops to guard the border in 1911. Check PolitFact
4) Obama was ready to sign the Dream Act except it got filibustered to death in the Senate
Now you explain to me why Republicans would fillibuster to death what was a Republican idea in the first place.
I see the other solution is eliminate all minimum wage statutes and open the borders. The Laws of economics are apolitical and fair.
So in addition to the NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement) you’d favor a NAFWA (North America Free Wage Agreement)? I’d think that would cause US (Canada as well — maybe they wouldn’t sign on to it?) low paying wages to drop toward Mexico and Central America levels. That would be great for the American “lower class” and the disparity between high and low income earners, wouldn’t it!
Cedric; You ignore the fact that we are experiencing these low wages anyway. Its just a cash business. Minimum wage is in reality Maximum wage.
Eliminate the artificial constraints and watch things blosom. Minimum wage is to wages what rent control is to housing. A huge artificial drag on the economy.
“Minimum wage is in reality maximum wage.” Just what does that mean — that anyone working for minimum wage is working at the maximum wage for the labor they are performing ? If that’s the case should we establish a “minimum wage” at various levels all the way up to corporate executives ? “Eliminate the artificial constraints and watch things blossom.” Uh-huh. How many economists of note agree with that ?
It’s been clear for a long time that those who talk as if they really do not like immigrants regardless are going to dismiss any and all efforts at reform as “amnesty” and accept only mass deportation.
One solution is to let Republicans carry on with their xenophobia until they lose even more elections (what about the last Senate election in Nevada did Republicans not understand) and then maybe we can sit down and have a sensible discussion.
In the meantime, we can take a moment to think about immigrant labor dependent industries in Iowa where an aging and increasingly urban native born population is going to make it increasingly difficult for employers in those industries to find employees. We can start with the kosher meat packing plant in Postville.