Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has an article on the 9th district candidates’ positions on immigration in the Lousiville Courier Journal. She describes Sodrel as being focused on closing the border; Hill as focused on penalizing illegal employment; and Schansberg as favoring a combination.
The rest of the article shows that all three candidates favor a mix. Sodrel says he now realizes that putting up a fence won’t do the trick and there has to be a mix. Hill says he also favors securing the border on top of penalizing employers who hire non-citizens illegally.
This quote from Schansberg included in the article makes some sense:
Schansberg said business and government must work together to stem illegal immigration. But he cautions that the benefits of border security and business fines “are likely to be oversold and the cost likely to be underestimated.”
“The key to this debate is realism,” Schansberg said. “Whatever we decide, we’re not going to deport 11 million people. We might agree that would be ideal in an ideal world, but it’s not going to happen at any reasonable expense.”
Just a thought, but I think fair trade legislation might also make some sense in combatting illegal immigration. Forcing foreign nations to meet our labor and environmental standards might: a) take the pressure off our employers to rush to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions to compete; and b) force improvement in foreign working conditions for companies that want to sell goods to the U.S.
Politicians have gotten wise and realize they can advocate anything on immigration, and not ever be accountable. We’ve had employer sanctions since 1986 and there has never been enforcement.There’s no data base of who’s legal and who isn’t and we aren’t about to fund anything like that on a national level.And Bush is always ( proudly) signing legislation and then saying which a wink and a smile what segments he wont have enforced.The new motto for politicians is: ‘advocate, even legislate but never, never fund anything and if there’s “a mess” blame the locals.This could be Indiana or it could be anywhere else.
Yes, a ‘mix’of immigration legislation sounds good!
We’re never going to see our govt force or encourage other nations to enforce our labor laws and environmental standards “Fair trade legislation” just isnt profitable and besides it’s “blatant socialism” ( as soon as Govt seeks to enforce it, that is). Ok to have all that stuff on the books to get credit for as long as it’s ignored and non funded)But I’m a “liberal” and I’m sure I sound like one,so just call it socialism and ignore it!
I think you’re on to something about the fair trade idea. Put more taxes on imports from less worker-friendly nations. The more out of line their labor standards are, the more we tax them.
Trade policies are absolutely part of the immigration picture. Indeed, raising the living standard elsewhere in the world would lessen pressure on the US from illegal immigration. But it goes even farther than that. Trade agreements like NAFTA forced legal changes to Mexico’s agricultural policies, disrupting established communities and leading to an already migrant lifestyle for those affected even before they emigrate. Thank all of those who blindly support trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA and their progeny. They seek to bring you more of the same in immigration policies.