|
April 08, 2006
Immigration is one of the more controversial topics in American politics. Many Americans are in favour of free trade but not liberal immigration policies. Though significant parts of the U.S. economy depend on illegal workers crossing the border with Mexico, many argue that immigration flows of the less-skilled Hispanic workers should be stemmed. They say that there should be a free flow of goods and capital but not of people, especially low-skilled people.
This conflict between the economy and the nation can be illustrated thus:
Steve Breen
it's a hot button issue that has led to increase in enforcement and an unprecedented increase in illegal immigration. Though the US demand for low-skilled labor continues to grow the domestic supply of suitable workers declines -- hence the need for immigrant labour. Yet U.S. immigration law contains virtually no legal channel through which low-skilled immigrant workers can enter the country to fill that gap.
The issue divides the Republicans: we have the culturally conservative populists and traditional law-and-order types on one side and the pro-growth libertarians and pro-business conservatives on the other.
The US House of Representatives passed a measure last year that theoretically would big a big fence, deport the US's 11 million illegal immigrants and penalize their employers. The conservative tough-on-immigration crowd argue that the porous border to the south poses a series of interlocking threats to the United States ----a national-security threat, a threat to employment opportunities for struggling native-born Americans and a threat to the very definition of America itself---and they support of measures to seal the borders and crack down on illegal immigration
Apparently, the US Senate leaders reached a tentative agreement on a broad, bipartisan compromise that would put the vast majority of the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. The New York Times says that under the proposed Senate agreement:
illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years or more, about seven million people, would eventually be granted citizenship if they remained employed, had background checks, paid fines and back taxes and learned English.Illegal immigrants who have lived here for two to five years, about three million people, would have to travel to a United States border crossing and apply for a temporary work visa. They would be eligible for permanent residency and citizenship over time, but they would have to wait several years longer for it.Illegal immigrants who have been here less than two years, about one million people, would be required to leave the country altogether. They could apply for spots in the temporary worker program, but they would not be guaranteed positions.
The tentative agreement has faltered ----as you would expect in an election year.
I see that Robert J Samuelson in the Washington Post is in favour of the big fence, as is Charles Krauthammer. The reality is that the US labor market demands roughly 500,000 low skilled workers a year, but its immigration laws supply just 5,000 such immigrant visas annually. And this tiny trickle is backlogged for 10 years. Hence the mismatch between labor-market realities and immigration policy.
|
This was an issue that didnt have to be one. Like most nations when there are domestic threats to power they whip up some nationalistic us and them fervour. Kind of like what Indonesia seems to be doing atm.
Most people are comfortable with latinos working in the US, the bloke over the road runs a landscaping business. All his workers are Mexican, they are actually an extended family. They come up to the US to work for the summer and then head back down to Mexico for the winter.
The bloke over the road is fluent in spanish and goes down there to visit them and holiday with them.
This is an issue that didnt have to be picked. It is about power and maintaining that power in government, not about illegal immigration.