Also, you rightly note the workers will still come here, in spite of the abuses of some of the employers. This is not a take it or leave it issue though, we CAN ensure they have some basic rights while prosecuting (or exposing via blogs and NGO's) those employers who choose to treat their illegals/”Z” visa holders under far less than fair circumstances. All without too terribly impacting the profit bottom line.

I'll go with your last note then, I easily find things I agree with from the left, center and the right. I don't subscribe to a particular sense of ideology, I find it to be the very center of many problems in this country and elsewhere.

In this case, my evangelical beliefs (concern for the rights of Mexicans and others, especially their long-term health and freedom) meld well with my citizen's comprehension of illegal immigration, having worked with such people before in Miami and going to school with them in NC, as well as my love of country, which leads me now to share my appreciation of and devotion to our history and founding ideals (especially the more realistic ones) with the immigrants in my church during their long, ardorous process of trying to make it through their path to citizenship.

I agree the situation is not take-it-or-leave-it, but ultimately the question is about a proposed reform v. the current system. Which of these two options do you support? Obviously both sides can be flawed, but I think it is too easy to criticize both without comparatively juding them.

As a Catholic, I recognize that providing everyone with the ability to live in frugal comfort is important. And as an American, I recognize the strength than immigration gives us. Increased immigration from Latin America enables both goals, allowing more people to live in comfort while helping our country. The setback that so many Republicans are now celebrating [1] prolongs poverty and weakens our country.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/06/09/know-nothings-but-patriotic-know-nothings.html

My take is the main audience for a liberal internationalist naturalized citizen is different from an old white guy who rails against the asians and the latins.

“I think we should simply take the best we can, not through a point system that was set up by politicians (now if a group of scientists, deans, CEO's, etc. were to come up with this list based on what they need to stay cutting edge I would go along with it) but by a well-thought out or well-informed process like that described above.”

(Un)Fortunately we do not live in a technocracy but a democracy. Two houses of politicians are given the power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” Every immigration system is going to be set-up by politicians.

It's easy to make the perfect the enemy of the good. It's harder to support responsible policies.

“Perhaps the key concern here is like that with other crisis areas (gun control especially), the laws are on the books but are not properly enforced. Admittedly, I am not familiar enough with the employer sanctions already on the books to identify the maximums for them, but its quite evident they are not being utilized in the judicial system.”

Laws that are more popular on the campaign trail than in practice are often this way. The anti-contraception law in Griswold v. Connecticut was rarely (ever?) enforced. The low-labor-cost-contraception laws are the same way.

“think the “return home” is another amateur hour concession the politicians made to try to win support for the bill. In other words, its a totally needless step fraught with potential difficulties.”

It's needed because of two political realities: America's long-time low-labor-cost strategy and Americans' desire to punish illegals.

“Have a conversation with law enforcement officials in the South and some of the Western states and you'll hear some very Marxist sounding talk about the kinds of abuses they've uncovered at some of these farms, factories and other centers of illegal immigrant work.”

As most agree the border is pourous, the proper way to measure exploitation is the democracy of feet: do illegals prefer to work for these “exploitive” firms or earn their traditional livelihoods south of the border?

” Not to mention the potential for sexual & economic abuse when employers have most of the power and say-so in the immigrants' legal situation and status.”"

I'm confused by how you jump from a rightwing criticism (enforce the laws!) to a leftwing criticism (an enforcement regime harms workers!) so easily.

I see little support for NAMBLA and not much support for the ACLU, yet I see Lou Dobbs with a wide daily audience throughout the media and a serious role to play in misinforming Americans about globalization, immigration and governance. Zakaria going after him is important, because the man cannot just be ignored or slighted, he must be addressed and refuted point by point by intelligent commentators such as yourself, Zakaria and others.

Problems with immigration reform as currently touted in the Senate:

1) The replacement of the EB-1 Visa system disturbs me. We should continue to as a nation entice, enjoy and assimilate the finest minds in the world who want to come here. Gutting this in favor of a perhaps misguided points system is going to make our continuing recent problem of attracting great students and thinkers from abroad (post-9/11 security taken too far in making it more difficult already for people to get visas to study here) exceptionally more problematic.
(Charles Krauthammer presents a good argument about all this in a recent column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053101849.html)

2) The entirely too weak attitude within the bill towards employers who knowingly hire illegals. These people need to be punished because next to the vastly underfunded immigration system, they are the next biggest problem. Serious, tough sanctions including mid to long-term incarceration needs to be the order of the day for these employers.

3) The Z visa for “illegals” is too cumbersome a process for an already underfunded, understaffed system and will be difficult to enforce and track. I'd rather have a generalized temporary work visa that must be strictly updated and extended as required for continued or new employment. The “Return home” requirement for family heads (they must return home to their native country to file a green card application?) is outrageous and something that could have only been cooked up in the zero-common sense atmosphere of Congress and the White House.

4) Lastly, the bill does not allow for significant requirements for workers rights and protections. Forgive me for letting personal experience trump what the politicians say, but I've seen far too many terrible cases of abuse of workers by employers paying them small amounts under the table. Again, the main problem here is that Congress fails to understand that businesses/employers are the key problems, they want cheap, voiceless labor. They should not enjoy that undeserved gift, and in the first place there should be an extensive punitive tax on the personal profits all employers that are known to utilize and hire illegals. They've been screwing over Americans and illegal immigrants for far too long and enjoying a free ride.

I think we should simply take the best we can, not through a point system that was set up by politicians (now if a group of scientists, deans, CEO's, etc. were to come up with this list based on what they need to stay cutting edge I would go along with it) but by a well-thought out or well-informed process like that described above.

Perhaps the key concern here is like that with other crisis areas (gun control especially), the laws are on the books but are not properly enforced. Admittedly, I am not familiar enough with the employer sanctions already on the books to identify the maximums for them, but its quite evident they are not being utilized in the judicial system.

I think the “return home” is another amateur hour concession the politicians made to try to win support for the bill. In other words, its a totally needless step fraught with potential difficulties.

Have a conversation with law enforcement officials in the South and some of the Western states and you'll hear some very Marxist sounding talk about the kinds of abuses they've uncovered at some of these farms, factories and other centers of illegal immigrant work. Not to mention the potential for sexual & economic abuse when employers have most of the power and say-so in the immigrants' legal situation and status.

I suspect that NAMBLA is as popular among O'Reilly's audience as Dobbs is among Zakaria's. Not to say that I disagree with O'Reilly on NAMBLA or with Zakaria on Dobbs, just that neither of those stands are heroic or particularly useful.

How is the points system for immigration reform misguided? Criticizing the reform for replacement merit-based special cases for a merit-based general system seems off, to me, unless one is against merit-based immigration.

Vindictiveness (this or that person “needs to be punished”) is a form of altruism [1] and can be useful, but I think your critique confuses the political process (which is to determine aims & goals) from the judicial process (which is to enforce them).

Do you think the “returm home” requirement is outrageous because it is too hard or too easy? I have heard both critiques.

On workers requires on protections — it seems the easiest way to turn a conservative into a Marxist is to tell him the proleteriat speaks Spanish and lives in America!

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/06/04/the-wary-student-part-3-cooperative-behavior.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001200/site/newsweek/page/0/

I wasn't impressed by Zakaria's mind dumb. It reads like every random political thought he's had in the past week was written, whether or not it's coherent.

If we won't have a shortage of workers, as he claims, then why bother with massive immigration? (To use just one example.)

PS: Soob has his own thoughts. [1]

Adam,

Thanks for the links!

Sean,

Thanks for the would-be link.

[1] http://soobdujour.blogspot.com/2007/06/beyond-bush.html

Obviously I disagree. He trots out what's happening in the real world as opposed to the fantasies of largely discredited wonks and politicians eager to out-do one another in the primaries. The danger of simplification is not a remote one but a very probable and ongoing affair, as anyone who tends to watch Lou Dobbs, John Gibson and others of their ilk or listen to the average politician these days can attest.

Further this insatiable appetite among the masses and the politicians to just do something, anything, in responding to our problems is self-defeating and harms America in the long run. Look at the lunacy of this immigration reform being touted or the raving madmen who seem to believe America would not be seriously damaged by deporting 12 million “illegals.”

Americans blame the government for this, but they voted for the politicians who gutted the immigration system in this country, they marched on to war in Iraq in the name of “doing something” and look where this kind of “just act” mentality has gotten us. We need sober, patient leadership and responsibility. This form of leadership inevitably comes from those who are confident and willing to see opportunities, not from those who are weak-willed and fearful.

Thanks for the comment.

Zakaria's attack on Lou Dobbs has all the moral courage of Bill O'Reilly's attack on NAMBLA. (I don't watch John Gibson, so I can't comment on him.)

How is the current immigration reform proposal “lunacy”? From what I've read, it appears to be a complex proposal that does more good than bad. I'm not much for it, because I don't understand it and it has some very real trade-offs. But lunacy? Please explain. (I'd appreciate it, as I need informed opinions on it.)

Non-enforcement of the immigration system has been going on for at least a generation, and is an informal part of America's long-term “cheap labor” economic strategy (as opposed to Japan's “cheap capital” strategy and Europe's blend of socialism and social welfare). Considering relative economic growth over the past generation, it seems to be working.

“they marched on to war in Iraq in the name of “doing something” and look where this kind of “just act” mentality has gotten us.”

Is this a serious comment? Or heated rhetoric?