Comments on: Bi-Partisan Senate Committee Paves Way For Immigration Reform

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 02:44:17 +0000

I would say that, regardless of the state of our welfare system, the US needs to have access to low-cost labor resources. There are jobs out there that are very difficult to perform and difficult to fill, regardless of the welfare pay. To give one example of how some nations obtain low-cost labor, if you travel to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, etc…you’ll find many of the hardest, boring, repetitive jobs are staffed by Philippinos. They come in under a temporary work visa, work the duration while sending money home to their family, then leave. After a predetermined time, they are allowed to reapply for another work visa. The money they earn, while small compared to the standard of living in the employing nations, is considered very good. If certain workers appear to be highly skilled, then there is the chance that a company will sponsor them for citizenship. The US has a perfect opportunity of working with Mexico in the same manner.

By: Tully

Tully — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:54:43 +0000

David, yes indeed, that is the problem. Even if the legislation is written as described and not mangled into bad, that doesn’t exempt it from being mangled in execution by this admin — or any other in the future.

Our government has a long history of passing reasonable and “balanced” legislation only to blow off one side of it to turn it back into a new Frankenstein’s Monster though selective application.

By: David Summers

David Summers — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:19:46 +0000

The question is whether it will be real reform or like the last reform, where we ended up just giving illegal aliens citizenship and ignored the promised reforms to enforcement. It sounds OK, but I kinda think that the path to citizenship should only kick in _after_ the other reforms are in place.

By: Tully

Tully — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:09:08 +0000

I read over the specifics earlier this week, and frankly it looks pretty damn good. With any luck it won't get mangled into really damn bad in the process of turning it into actual legislation. If there's a part I don't like it's the low-skilled worker provisions, but that's more due to the structural problem that creates the demand. Namely, that we have (especially in California) created welfare systems that so strongly inhibit our own able-bodied poor from being willing to take low-skilled jobs. Not that I blame them -- when you would actually lose money and benefits by taking a job, why would you take it?