I'll be honest and say that I am researching this topic. I know that the U.S. is rarely in the habit of looking to other countries for models on how to handle problems, but I am in that very habit.

Several questions:

Do you think that building a wall and sending more people to the border of Mexico will help curtail illegal immigration to the U.S.?

Do you think that it is fair policy for an individual city to declare itself an amnesty zone for prosecuting illegal immigrants. Link here for a list

Do you think Canada needs to have tighter border control with the U.S.?

Do you think that limiting documents to English only, and requiring English competency above and beyond the current standards are effective ways of boosting assimilation of Spanish-speaking immigrants?

How do small businesses in your country handle documentation of workers, and is this a major problem?

Thanks!

Unfortunately I don't really feel qualified to answer your questions except for the above.

'In Australia from August 2007 it will be an offence under the Migration Act for a person to knowingly or recklessly:

-allow an illegal worker to work
-refer an illegal worker for work with another business.

Individuals who are convicted of these offences face fines of up to $13 200 and two years imprisonment, while companies face fines of up to $66 000 per illegal worker. The penalties are higher where an illegal worker is being exploited through slavery, forced labour or sexual servitude.

The new offences only apply to employers and labour suppliers who engage or refer illegal workers after the offences commence in August 2007. You will not have to check the work rights of existing workers unless their contracts are renewed or extended after August 2007.'

Obviously we do not have the same issues with illegal workers as the US, and while there are occasional cries of "They're taking our jobs!" the people doing the whingeing do not seem to differentiate much between illegal and 'legal' immigrants.

Oh and I found this interesting snippet while reading this very informative article:

Several questions:

Do you think that building a wall and sending more people to the border of Mexico will help curtail illegal immigration to the U.S.?

Yes it will help but it will not solve the problem all by itself. The forst thing that needs to be done is to ENFORCE the laws that are on the books. The Feds have totally dropped the ball on this.

Do you think that it is fair policy for an individual city to declare itself an amnesty zone for prosecuting illegal immigrants. Link here for a list.

Absolutely NOT! Immigration comes under Federal jurisdiction. There are Federal laws on the books and individual cities have no right to violate them.

Do you think Canada needs to have tighter border control with the U.S.?

This is a very difficult situation to deal with. Thousands of Canadians and Americans cross the border every day to go shopping, visiting, to work etc. Unfortunately, this border also needs to be secured. A good reason in my opinion for some sort of ID card or something that is very difficult to forge or duplicate. Both Canada and the US need to get a handle on who is in their country and why.

Do you think that limiting documents to English only, and requiring English competency above and beyond the current standards are effective ways of boosting assimilation of Spanish-speaking immigrants?

My great grandparents came here and they did so legaly I might add and learned to speak English because they needed to in order to get by and also because they were very proud to be part of their new country. English has for 200 years been an English speaking nation. Anyone wishing to come here and be part of the greatest nation on the planet should be willing to make the necessary personal sacrifices or they shouldn't bother coming.

How do small businesses in your country handle documentation of workers, and is this a major problem?

Right now this is a total shambles in the USA. Far too many businesses care only about the bottom line and nothing about the rules and regulations. And why should they? The Feds refuse to step up to the plate and enforce the laws. They refuse to provide an efficient means for business to deal with the situation. Sadly, this is one of the few situations in the US where both major parties are in total agreement. They both refuse to enforce the laws and they both refuse to deal with the situation. In the meanwhile, the public assistance programs are decimated by people that broke the law to come here, break the law every day to stay here and get preferential treatment because they are getting "picked on"

I tend to think that, too, but from both the Dems and Reps we get more government spending on the issue. Is it a better investment to have bilingual programs, or more spending on remedial English for everyone?

I disagree with almost any policy that sets a mandate without also increasing spending, because you end up with crappy programs that are ineffective except in the richest of school districts. They don't need the help anyway.

IMHO it is not nor has it ever been the government's responsibility to teach English or anything else for that matter. If someone wants the benefits of living here, let the accept the responsibilities that go along with it. Anyone that wants to can learn conversational English well enough to get by.

Unfortunately, a long time ago, the government decided to take over for the individual's responsibilities as it was an excellent way to "grow" the government. FDR also stated once that the best way to keep the government large and to allow it to get larger is to keep the population stupid. The government has done a wonderful job of that as well.

I too disagree with any mandate that isn't funded but $ is not the answer. The answer is putting the responsibility back in the hands of the individual and not a government agency.

Let the flaming begin.

no flaming, jt. i can understand, i think, that you would take a hard line on immigration in the US because from what i understand, the numbers are astronomical. and business is largely to blame because they are the ones who gain so much by it.

as radical as this seems, if border protection can be fixed, it seems the best thing to do would be to have an amnesty period where working illegals who have been in the country for a certain amount of time can actually come forward and be granted citizenship or residency/working permits. the numbers are too great to deport them all, even if you could find them, and it would be a massive economic problem if they weren't there. at least if they were registered they would be paying taxes, which would make them less of a drain on the system, and language issues would work themselves out because they would be part of the regular workforce.

I would tend to agree with the amnesty thing a bit more if the majority of these people did not only break our laws by coming here and living here, but have also stolen people's identities. Many have also been through the court system multiple times for things such as robbery, assault, murder, etc. The Feds once again dropped the ball here as the first time for any of these crimes should have been immediate deportation. For those that have been leading an honest life other than sneaking in here, I would be more lenient.

To make matters worse, the Government has now turned against it's own border patrol. Two of them are currently in prison because they shot an illegal alien who was smuggling a huge amount of drugs into the country. He tried to escape and was shot once in the ass. The agents are doing hard time. The smuggler was given immunity, a green card and is now suing the USA for $5 million. What is wrong with this picture?

Put Them Back on the Job

Federation for American Immigration Reform - one way to loook at the numbers - for e.g. Nevada

A Review of a Report from the Progressive Leadership Alliance - another way to look at the numbers in Nevada

Which leads us to the old adage:
"Figures lie and liars figure." eh?

Sure, that, too. :D

I just think that if we look at the polarized version, we only see a bit of the elephant. There are actually advantages to having immigrants be here illegally, and as BI said, as long as there is profit from that situation, we will never *win* the war on illegal immigration.

Just like we'll never *win* the war on drugs or government corruption because too many people profit from the revolving doors.

i think that both reports look pretty flawed, and that doing a real unbiased economic analysis of both costs and benefits would probably be a good idea.

without sounding like a bleeding heart, some of the crime is likely a consequence of the current situation rather than about the quality of the people, just like some crime can be a consequence of poverty.

it seems statistically improbable to me that a significant proportion are real criminals and i think it's probably easy to tar and feather all of them because of the actions of the few, especially when there are groups actively promoting this view. my government's spin on "queue-jumpers" (a misnomer, anyway) is highly prejudicely and basically generates fear simply to distract us from all the other lies they tell.

but hey, i'm not there and haven't experienced the population pressures. we australian women have been instructed by our poli's breed breed breed.

from our treasurer - "one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country"

Not really....????

a 100% documented statement. really truly.

I think our gov's message lately has been - "Have one because orphanages are running really short on crack-addicted babies whose mothers were victims of rape or incest."

/raging cynicism


There are population pressures, and I know that immigration is a big part of it. Two things just don't sit well with me - one is that white immigrants are OK, but brown ones are not.

The other problem is that a child born in the U.S. is not born into a system that cares for families or children, but s/he will grow up to consume more than any other type of individual on the planet.

Yup, the American economy has to maintain the staus quo. Isn't it true that most illegal workers hold jobs other Americans won't take because the employers don't pay enough to attract most legal workers?

I believe that most illegal workers aren't criminals but hard-working and the drive to emigrate derives from a wish to do well, not to rip off their host country.

I also read that there was an amnesty in 1986 which failed because the system became choked with paperwork and the bureaucrats couldn't cope. There would probably be 10x the number of illegals now, so such a plan would probably be impossible to implement.

Taking a step further back, should immigration be illegal in the first place?

Almost all people on Earth have reached their current home by migration at some point down the chain. By what right do we tell others that they may not do what we or our ancestors did?

We have to start somewhere, but driving up to factories with buses, and loading anyone who looks Mexican (even if they are citizens) onto said buses and taking them to an undisclosed location with no communication, no Miranda rights or contact with anyone is NOT where I would start.

We've got to be smarter than that, but it looks good in the papers, like they're actually doing something about the problem.

I'm not sure if the border patrol is works either. That's a lot of land, and culture and ecosytems don't exactly recognize the difference between countries. Several states used to BE Mexico not that long ago.

If you read beyond the "main stream media" you will probably decide that is not really true.

Immigration is not and should not be illegal. There are however rules to follow and those rules have many purposes among which are the protection of our citizens. I welcome anyone willing to come here by following the rules and be willing to assimilated into our society. It is hardly fair to those that are trying to do it the right way to be held back by those who have no use for the laws of our land. If the first thing you are going to do is break our laws to enter here, and then break more laws to steal proper ID so you can get a job, then as far as I'm concerned, America is not the country for you. We have more than enough criminals. We don't need to import more.

You're right, JT, it's not the immigration itself, but the rules of proper immigration that are the crux here.

Almo - in some ways I do not see the purpose of most of the immigration laws we have here. America, as with almost any other nation, was built on migrations, fueled by economic profit and made possible by illegal acts such as trading in illegal goods - guns, whisky, IDs...

There has always been the attitude of "I was Here First, and therefore more legitimate than you." The U.S. goes through these periods of xenophobia and racial targeting.



JT and Hammy - if I had to pick a group of people who are actually taking our jobs, I'd say it would be those in the corporate world who are literally taking our jobs out of the country. Carlos Mencia has it right when he says "Mexicans will have to go back to Mexico to steal our jobs."

Could you please post links to some of the media you refer to?!
Seriously. I'd appreciate it, thanks.

Al - My thoughts on that: There has always been migration of peoples and always will be. People have to have better ways to deal with others coming to "their" country when the resources are being used up already.
The whole of planet earth is suffering and will only get worse as long as those babies are being popped out.

JD - corporations are the worst for taking jobs away is so true! I guess that's "Capitalism"!?

Flat out: If you are here illegally then you shouldn't be here because IT'S ILLEGAL.
I fail to understand why American citizens MUST follow all American laws when living in America, and aliens are allowed to break the laws with little or no repercussion. By allowing them to say here we are allowing them to break the law.

Shay and LandS - since you live up that way, do you think the U.S. should be concerned with Canadian border issues?

As stated earlier, I don't believe that illegal immigrants 'steal' jobs. I agree with your quote and it's the same here- the popular perception is that it is Indians in India who are 'stealing' our jobs, and Chinese in China, thanks to outsourcing. :rolleyes:

But wouldn't relaxing immigration laws stop companies moving abroad to lower paid and less regulated countries? We all know how the biggest companies lobby the government for a free labour market so that they can enjoy the economic benefits. They don't give a hoot about borders or illegals or legals.

I do agree with JT and Shay that laws have to be adhered to though. The current situation in the US seems like a bureacratic nightmare.

i have to say on this my opinion is that borders are arbitrary, imaginary lines made up by governments which have no right to control the people within them.

but given that i live in this world and that's the way that it is, the issue which concerns me more than border control is the way those involved are demonised or glorified and way the issue is manipulated for its political capital. i'm sure that there is some truth on both sides, but it is impossible to even dream of finding a solution while there is so much to be gained by those in power, or by those who want power.

and for those people who illegally enter countries becuase they genuinely want to find work or improve the lives of their families, who wouldn't break laws to do that? that doesn't count as "criminal behaviour" in my book.

Amen, sister!

I see more damage done by millionaires than by anybody else.

If they get to write the laws, then who is the real criminal?


(so says the choir)

It's easier to enforce immigration laws when you're on an island, and some borders just aren't that arbitrary, BUT easing up the borders only allows more jobs to go just out of reach of many American citizens. It's not the borders that are screwed up, it's the existing labor system.

And, we have devalued all kinds of jobs - those who care for children, those who clean our offices, those who work with their hands and build those offices in the first place, and those who prepare food.

I hate to tell the story of what happens to the maids at the finest hotels in Denver. I'll just say for now that it's a revolving door between here and Mexico with stops at abandoned tax money, and wages that are left to be reabsorbed into the owner's coffers. Yes, all technically legal, but who are they kidding?

Hammy - thanks for spelling that out.

Last time I looked, the sex trade, hiring undocumented workers and bringing people across to work were illegal acts in this country. I don't think we need to do much more than make prosecuting businesses stick and stop blaming the immigrants, legal or otherwise.

Bring me your tired ....




And the racial thing still just bugs the crap out of me.

We HAVE the laws. They are not enforced!

I don't think that is the only economic factor cited.

I think that some people just feel that unrestricted immigration without sufficient reflex time will lead to immigrants that are only partial integrated into society. This, in turn, leads to large swaths of alienated, disaffected inhabitants of your country that are more prone to crime and general disturbance of social norms.

I really don't think that a country should accept more people than its education and social programs are equipped to handle. Immigrants should be integrated into a country (as opposed to assimilated), and illegal immigration means that we have less control over this process.

The laws are enforced in a predictable pattern. Businesses get off without repercussions.

I think there was a big problem introduced when corporations became "persons", and an even bigger problem since in failing to apply appropriate sanctions when they offend.

Be prepared for an "Insiders Perspective". I deal with this most days at work (albeit restricted to then UK and identity fraud).

Lay it on us, Carb.


Mo - yes, most definitelyl.

There will also be a 'crash course' in how to perform it and why it is done ;).

... 'tis fairly long though :(.

Looking forward to it!

*waits*

Refugee groups slam US solution

Refugee advocates have expressed outrage at a plan to swap asylum seekers intercepted en route to Australia with those detained while trying to enter the United States.

The agreement, announced by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, could result in Australia agreeing to resettle Cuban and Haitian refugees detained at Guantanamo Bay, in return for the US accepting asylum seekers held on Nauru.

The program signals further changes to the Pacific solution, after the Nauruan government moved to place time limits on the processing of Australia-bound boat people sent to the remote island.

Up to 200 asylum seekers could be exchanged under the scheme, with the first to go expected to be the 83 Sri Lankans and eight Burmese currently having their asylum claims processed on Nauru.

Prime Minister John Howard said the refugee exchange would deter asylum seekers from paying people smugglers for passage to Australia.

"The thing that discourages people from people smuggling is the fact that we make it very plain that people will not be allowed to reach the Australian mainland, that they will be processed offshore and that we are not going to have our very generous humanitarian refugee program distorted by people smugglers," Mr Howard told ABC radio.

"It will drive home the point that this country will not compromise in relation to illegal immigration."

Mr Andrews said Australia would only accept refugees from the US for resettlement if their claims had been found to be genuine.

Asylum Seeker Resource Centre spokeswoman Pamela Curr said the scheme was a "dark and murky" political fix that would not deter asylum seekers from seeking refuge in Australia.

"This is not a container load of washing machines that we've decided to reject. This is human beings," Ms Curr said.

"They're our responsibility and this policy is shredding the (UN) Refugee Convention."

Ms Curr said political pressure from Nauru had prompted the island nation to set boundaries on the processing of boat people bound for Australia.

"I think (Australia) is worried that Nauru's going to cut up rough and put pressure on the government to get these young men and boys off Nauru," she said.

Doubts in the US over the future of Guantanamo Bay may also have come into calculation, she said.

Labor's immigration spokesman Tony Burke warned the policy could encourage more boat arrivals.

"If you are in one of the refugee camps around the world there is no more attractive destination than to think you can get a ticket to the USA," he told ABC radio.

"What John Howard is doing is saying to the people around the world, if you want to get to the US, the way to it is to hop on a boat and go to Christmas Island."

Australian Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett said the program was a pitiful attempt by the government not to appear soft on asylum seekers.

Project SafeCom spokesman Jack Smit said the policy was a desperate attempt by Mr Howard to avoid Australia's responsibilities to refugees.

Border controls between countries that have comparable and equal living standards makes very little sense to me. I would ferociously oppose increasing border controls between the US and Canada. I think the European Union is a model in this sense where borders between member states are merely symbolic and are crossed at 120km/h.

Between nations that have obvious discrepancies between living standards (US and Mexico), borders and immigration must be controlled. Given the vastness of the American-Mexican border, the question is how to do this without turning your country into a police state, where you have immigration officers versus 11 million (known) illegal immigrants.

A wall is too expensive and too ineffective to be held as a reasonable solution. Unfortunately it is the easiest political solution to sell. Rhetorically it works perfectly since walls are theoretically impermeable. In practice it's nonsense.

I prefer to analyze this from another angle. Illegal immigrants in the US are exactly where they want to be while the US economy would wobble significantly without them.

Yes illegal immigrants should be deported upon detection, yes there should be border patrols between the US and Mexico, but no there is no universal solution to immigration. The only way to stop immigration is to reduce the discrepancy in living standards between the two countries involved. The best way to accomplish that is through free trade and development policies.