GWP needs its own thread

I'm guessing you'd be against a comprehensive Guest Worker Program (GWP), then...just to be clear. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I'd be very much in favor of a GWP. Your buddies in organized labor are the one against it. And also more realistic quota and more intelligent quotas (e.g., anyone here legally like on a visa and graduating from a 4-year college, gets fast-tracked to citizenship.)

I am a big fan of legal immigration. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Quite the contrary. I would be very much in favor of a program for a legal method for non-citizens to work here. You start guessing CT...instead of just asking...and it gets you in trouble.

I am far from against the hispanic individual. The ones who want to work here (generally) have good family values, they work extremely hard, they want to assimilate in this country and they are generally thankful for the opportunity. I'm not sure what more you can ask for from an individual. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I'm definately all for a GWP, but one that doesn't reward those that broke the law and came in illegally. They go to the back of the line.

I think we need too move past the "if" or "why" and move to "how." The reality is illegals comprise an important part of our workforce. We can't just round 'em up and send them back without a plan. The status quo is unacceptable as well.

It is amazing how this issue, like NAFTA, makes for strange bedfellows. The liberal unions in bed with the conservative America First protectionist crowd.
Originally Posted by atlcomedy

There shouldn't be any controversy here

GWP needs its own thread Originally Posted by pjorourke

+1, and I'll throw my hat in the ring with PJ, RK, and Alt.

I'm guessing you'd be against a comprehensive Guest Worker program, then...just to be clear. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I'd be very much in favor of a GWP. Your buddies in organized labor are the one against it. And also more realistic quota and more intelligent quotas (e.g., anyone here legally like on a visa and graduating from a 4-year college, gets fast-tracked to citizenship.)

I am a big fan of legal immigration. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Quite the contrary. I would be very much in favor of a program for a legal method for non-citizens to work here. You start guessing CT...instead of just asking...and it gets you in trouble.

I am far from against the hispanic individual. The ones who want to work here (generally) have good family values, they work extremely hard, they want to assimilate in this country and they are generally thankful for the opportunity. I'm not sure what more you can ask for from an individual. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I'm definately all for a GWP, but one that doesn't reward those that broke the law and came in illegally. They go to the back of the line.

I think we need too move past the "if" or "why" and move to "how." The reality is illegals comprise an important part of our workforce. We can't just round 'em up and send them back without a plan. The status quo is unacceptable as well.

It is amazing how this issue, like NAFTA, makes for strange bedfellows. The liberal unions in bed with the conservative America First protectionist crowd.

And Chuckles, the reason the Texans are talking about Mexicans isn't an issue of race but geography. Our friends in the Northeast, for example, have a much more diverse set of illegals... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I really disagree with one point, atl. And that's your thing about the status quo, and you wanting to send them to the back of the line. I think that sounds admirable, but is impractical and unfair on lots of levels. We have "grandfather" clauses in lots of laws. It's the only way to equably deal with a new law.

I think it would be an overwhelming task to determine which of the 11 million people deserved to go to the end of the line. I'd be in favor of grandfathering people in, then tweaking the system after that instead of trying to create a sieve for 11 million to fit through.

Also, I think violations should be dealt with strictly, and Congress should define what constitutional rights, if any, attach to the program, maybe on a staggered basis. I wouldn't be in favor of taking any rights that already exist for undocumenteds away, but would not be against restricting those that may yet be undetermined.

Damn!!! 4 against 1. Mazo, TTH, Chev, where are you?

I really disagree with one point, atl. And that's your thing about the status quo, and you wanting to send them to the back of the line. I think that sounds admirable, but is impractical and unfair on lots of levels. We have "grandfather" clauses in lots of laws. It's the only way to equably deal with a new law. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

You are confusing citizenship with staying in the country. Think of two lines - 1) a line to become an immigrant and ultimately a citizen and 2) a line to work here but without any rights to become a citizen -- any children born of a GW wouldn't get citizenship. You could grandfather people here to the front of line 2) but probably with some penalties (e.g., taxes) for the time they were illegal. They could stay here and continue working. But they would go to the back of line 1) to be a citizen. Those that stayed home and submitted their applications would get that first. New people could apply for both lines -- you might get the right to be a GW, but still be in the citizenship line.

You are confusing citizenship with staying in the country. Think of two lines - 1) a line to become an immigrant and ultimately a citizen and 2) a line to work here but without any rights to become a citizen -- any children born of a GW wouldn't get citizenship. You could grandfather people here to the front of line 2) but probably with some penalties (e.g., taxes) for the time they were illegal. They could stay here and continue working. But they would go to the back of line 1) to be a citizen. Those that stayed home and submitted their applications would get that first. New people could apply for both lines -- you might get the right to be a GW, but still be in the citizenship line. Originally Posted by pjorourke

That's a clearer explanation than I've ever heard. I've always heard that the GWP would "lead" to citizenship. That makes it one line. But if it develops into two lines, like you say, then I wouldn't have much problem with it.

I do have a problem with excluding the GWP who give birth to children on US soil from citizenship. Especially as long as people who walk across the border to drop kids for citizenship still have that access. It seems unfair to let them do that while restricting people who are obeying the GWP.

I also think it would be hard to do with the current 14th Amendment. I know, I know what some of the people are saying about the interpretation, but IDT that will stand the test anyone would try and bring against it.

I don't think illegals should have citizenship for their children either.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I understand there are various interpretations that would allow it. Here is one:http://www.14thamendment.us/birthrig...al_intent.html

I suspect if Congress and the President got behind the idea as a solution to this problem, the Supremes would probably find a way to make it happen.

Damn!!! 4 against 1. Mazo, TTH, Chev, where are you? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Don't look at me. I live in Wisconsin.

Up here an illegal alien is a guy from Iowa with expired plates.

Up here an illegal alien is a guy from Iowa with expired plates. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

ROTFLMAO That may be the post of the month.

You are confusing citizenship with staying in the country. Think of two lines - 1) a line to become an immigrant and ultimately a citizen and 2) a line to work here but without any rights to become a citizen -- any children born of a GW wouldn't get citizenship. You could grandfather people here to the front of line 2) but probably with some penalties (e.g., taxes) for the time they were illegal. They could stay here and continue working. But they would go to the back of line 1) to be a citizen. Those that stayed home and submitted their applications would get that first. New people could apply for both lines -- you might get the right to be a GW, but still be in the citizenship line. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Ignoring the details for now, I agree with what you laid out from the standpoint of there being multiple paths, or "lines" & "guestworker" status doesn't always mean path to citizenship.

I disagree, Charles, that the status quo is acceptable. In many ways it is even unfair to the current illegals. I think for most of them, they'd like to get some clarity on what their future holds and what rights/options they may or may not have going forward.

Charles, I agree this whole "Anchor Baby" thing is a scam and should not be rewarded.

I really disagree with one point, atl. And that's your thing about the status quo, and you wanting to send them to the back of the line. I think that sounds admirable, but is impractical and unfair on lots of levels. We have "grandfather" clauses in lots of laws. It's the only way to equably deal with a new law. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

You are confusing citizenship with staying in the country. Think of two lines - 1) a line to become an immigrant and ultimately a citizen and 2) a line to work here but without any rights to become a citizen -- any children born of a GW wouldn't get citizenship. You could grandfather people here to the front of line 2) but probably with some penalties (e.g., taxes) for the time they were illegal. They could stay here and continue working. But they would go to the back of line 1) to be a citizen. Those that stayed home and submitted their applications would get that first. New people could apply for both lines -- you might get the right to be a GW, but still be in the citizenship line. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I guess I fall inbetween these two ends. I don't agree with CT on the fairness issue. Why is it fair for someone who broke the law to get at the front of the line, in front of those who didn't? Frankly, I don't think that's fair either.

That being said, I think this issue is of such a high degree of importance, that I believe that some kind of an amnesty situation needs to be addressed for those already here...along with a path to citizenship for those folks. To hell with fairness...we are never all going to agree on what is fair...and being fair falls way down the list of importance to me. So, I guess I agree with CT as it relates to the practicability nature of his comment (and it sickens me to have to admit such agreement ).

I also think that such a GWP needs to favor our neighbors more than folks on the other side of the world...at least as it relates to unskilled labor. I'm for this country...my country...The US of A. That's my team. Once someone is a citizen?...then they are part of my country...they are then on my team. And I would want the higher skilled jobs in this country to be weighted more for my team...not someone from somewhere else. I want my team to be the best off. There are a lot of folks on here that I wouldn't give the time of day to in a team meeting. But, let some other jersey show up on the playing field?...and I will help that team member whup that opponents ass.

But any program, however it is structured, is meaningless unless it also has a comprehensive plan for securing the borders with teeth in the penalty for violators.

There are many, many dynamics that would need to be worked out for a GWP...and it is an important issue that does need addressing. But like Peej says, organized labor will take on such a program with such focus that, IMHO, it will not happen.

I also think that such a GWP needs to favor our neighbors more than folks on the other side of the world...at least as it relates to unskilled labor. I'm for this country...my country...The US of A. That's my team. Once someone is a citizen?...then they are part of my country...they are then on my team. And I would want the higher skilled jobs in this country to be weighted more for my team...not someone from somewhere else. I want my team to be the best off. There are a lot of folks on here that I wouldn't give the time of day to in a team meeting. But, let some other jersey show up on the playing field?...and I will help that team member whup that opponents ass.

But any program, however it is structured, is meaningless unless it also has a comprehensive plan for securing the borders with teeth in the penalty for violators.

. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I struggle with this team stuff, although I know you are not alone in this POV. To borrow your "team" analogy, if I'm the General Manager of an NBA team on draft day, I'm taking the 7-footer with great post moves wherever he's from not the 5' 10" shooting guard that is a little slow, can't shoot real well but happened to go to college in a neighboring state. Or in practice, if I'm picking my team, I'm taking the engineers and scientists from whereever vs. future busboys.

I do agree once you have a realistic plan, violating it needs to have real consequences.

I'm taking the engineers and scientists from whereever vs. future busboys. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Word!

And also more realistic quota and more intelligent quotas (e.g., anyone here legally like on a visa and graduating from a 4-year college, gets fast-tracked to citizenship.) Originally Posted by pjorourke

if I'm picking my team, I'm taking the engineers and scientists from whereever vs. future busboys. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I agree...it's hard to write an entire plan on a hooker/John board. But the hard truth is that the engineers and scientists, no matter what the plan, will be the 10%, not the 90%...much like your NBA star ain't quite the run of the mill round ball player.

Absolutely, we need to have a system in place that covers the best and the brightest (and a fast, smooth process at that), but an unskilled (or moderately skilled) workforce plan is where the majority of immigration will come from...just like our total workforce is comprised mostly of unskilled or moderately skilled workforce. I'm for moving our current team's unskilled to moderately skilled, and moderately skilled to skilled...and filling the "to be developed" positions from a legal immigrant source.

Down here in Texas, the immigrant workforce fills the positions of waiters and busboys, yard and building maintainance, roughnecks and roustabouts, building trades, etc. There's a hell of a lot more of those jobs than nuclear scientist jobs. I don't mean to belittle the fact that we need a fast track for the best and the brightest...but we probably need a plan in place to deal with the big picture before we start tweaking it for things that are a given (or at least should be a given).

organized labor will take on such a program with such focus that, IMHO, it will not happen. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

You mean we've found something that will take Labor's attention away from Mazo's beloved Wisconsin?

I agree...it's hard to write an entire plan on a hooker/John board. But the hard truth is that the engineers and scientists, no matter what the plan, will be the 10%, not the 90%.

Absolutely, we need to have a system in place that covers the best and the brightest (and a fast, smooth process at that), but an unskilled (or moderately skilled) workforce plan is where the majority of immigration will come from...just like our total workforce is comprised mostly of unskilled or moderately skilled workforce. I'm for moving our current team's unskilled to moderately skilled, and moderately skilled to skilled...and filling the "to be developed" positions from a legal immigrant source.

Down here in Texas, the immigrant workforce fills the positions of waiters and busboys, yard and building maintainance, roughnecks and roustabouts, building trades, etc. There's a hell of a lot more of those jobs than nuclear scientist jobs. I don't mean to belittle the fact that we need a fast track for the best and the brightest...but we probably need a plan in place to deal with the big picture before we start tweaking it for things that are a given (or at least should be a given). Originally Posted by Rudyard K

We are, I think, on the same page & you are probably pretty close on the 90/10 being moderately skilled/highly("uniquely") skilled.

I agree with dealing with the big picture (e.g. large numbers) but I'll suggest the process for the "best & brightest" is not a given today. I'd bet more than one board member has run into this process 1st hand. I've dealt with it 2nd hand trying to hire from this group. There are 10's of thousands of foreigners excelling in our universities not allowed to stay or have to jump through major hoops to do so.