That's why employer sanctions are toothless and never enforced.  Meanwhile, these cynical Republican business interests whip up the BVBL's of the world to garner the hate vote for Republican candidates.

Looks to me like a system of indirect political payoffs -- heavy campaign contributions were repaid with a blind eye towards enforcement of immigration laws.  Both parties were complicit in this, although Republicans have benefitted twice as much due to their control of Congress and the White House (at least until last November). 

These ICE statistics show the effects of this on the enforcement end:

"In the past, administrative fines often proved to hold little deterrence value for violators. Many employers came to view these fines as simply the "cost of doing business." Administrative fines were ignored, not paid in a timely matter or mitigated down over several years. ICE has dramatically increased the amounts of criminal fines and forfeiture over previous years of administrative fines alone. Administrative fines in FY 2001 totaled $1,095,734, $72,585 in FY 2002, $37,514 in FY 2003, $45,480 in FY 2004, and $6,500 in FY 2005. However, during the three quarters of FY 2007, ICE has obtained criminal fines, restitutions, and civil judgments in WSE investigations in excess of $30 million."
http://www.ice.gov/p...

So they went from only collecting $6,500 in fines in 2005, to $30 million in the first three quarters of 2007.  There is no way to interpret this other than deliberate lack of enforcement for many years.  Now, when the political heat is on this issue, suddenly the government discovers that it does indeed have enforcement tools at hand.

So in the face of all this hypocrisy and corruption, where does that leave us? 

mostly by Republicans, it leaves us with the completely FUBAR immigration system we've got today.  It also leaves us with cynical Republican politicians attempting to exploit this issue for their own gain, even as they take wads of dough from the very industries that are the main lawbreakers.  I mean, it's not like Republicans should have any credibility after Iraq, Katrina, etc., but they can always try to demagogue and scare people!  (the old right-wing standby)

The VA GOP has admitted, given their inability to shake responsibility for abusive driver fees, that demagoguing immigration is all they have going into this November's elections.  They'll continue to claim that the VA Dems don't even support enforcing existing law, let alone the types of resolutions in PWC and Loudoun.  As far as I can tell, the only arguably real issue that local government can address that may involve a disproprotionate share of latinos is illegal group homes.  There is simply no proof that a disproportionate share of latinos have a negative effect on housing, jobs, or public safety.

VA Dems should:

1) Denounce racism,

2) Point out, as in this post, the GOP's phony demagoguing, and

3) Put the concerns about immigration in the proper place among all the issues to be addressed by local and state government.

VA Dems should not let the VA GOP define this issue.  VA Dems are not only proven law enforcers and believers in the effectiveness of government, but also care about the welfare of their constituents in stark contrast to their GOP counterparts.

And I'm frankly shocked that Dems haven't hit this one out of the ballpark by now.  The Republicans are so wrong and so hypocritical on this issue -- on so many levels -- it's not even a fair contest.  The problem with Democrats is that they look at polls and focus groups and worry WAY too much, instead of just kicking butt.  That's one reason why I'm a blogger, not a politician. :)

I went to the Democratic Party of Virginia website, checked out the platform, and there wasn't a word about immigration.  Well, fair enough, maybe it shouldn't even be a State or local issue -- it's a federal issue.  But if Republicans are going to make it a state and local issue, let's not cede the issue to them.

I then went to the campaign websites of Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Richardson, and Biden.  Edwards and Clinton didn't even seem to have a page on immigration, though maybe I missed it.  Richardson's seemed to be well thought out and balanced -- worthy of study.

http://www.richardso...

Makes sense as he's the governor of a border state.  Obama discusses immigration, but not in a lot of detail.

On the Republican side, Guiliani's site was down for today.  Romney's had a page on immigration, which basically said that it is stupid to be allowing uneducated folks to walk across the border while we are keeping out the best and brightest.  Or words to that effect.  He has a video which I didn't watch.

Jim Webb's Senate site has a summary of an amendment that he proposed for a Homeland Security bill:

http://webb.senate.g...

I wonder if that amendment is going anywhere.

is making a big mistake.  First, if they ignore it they leave the playing field open to the demagogues on the right to distort and mischaracterize the issue.  Second, they miss an opportunity to frame the issue on their own terms and to once again demonstrate that it's the DEMOCRATIC PARTY that's serious about leading America, while the Republican Party just mouths off.

We all need digital. We need to see this very clear. Its a question of power and a question of preservation. Corporate Amercia is more concerned with tax law than any vile threat over illegal workers. In 2006 Republicans were in power, very few sadly were seeing the kinda change that the 2006 election brought when it was time to contribute. Donations are very directed and with purpose in terms of incumbants and that is why incumbants almost always win out over challengers in donations like these. I am sure one could make an agruement regarding historical contributions to one or the other but the fact remains business almost always goes with the the best bet and normally thats those in power. For those that may have issue with this thought we only need to review the donations from business to Clinton and all Dems for his election over Dole in that term. Business contributions are about "influence", whereas as our donations as citizens are about "support". Ours is emotional theres is well, its business. Should the Dems win hold of the Senate and take the WH in 2008 you very well may see yet another shift. The want a place at the table with leadership and money gets them that. They pay for the opportunity to influence the debate and then wave the money carrot in front of them for re-election...its the power play plain and simple. If you had to make a contribution from Corporate Amercia would it not make sense to give it a chairman of a committee that was seeking re-election that was going to have legislation come up that would effect your business over someone else running for office. Its makes little diference what the ideology is in play it is solely about influence.

Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

While nobody was watching, they ignored illegal employment practices for years.  It wasn't until people started caring that some started to take notice and make it a political issue.

This willfull ignorance was a result of the campaign donations you have pointed out. 

Corporations are the spoilers in the immigration debate.  It shouldn't be about them.  Immigration is about people making new lives in America and building a future for their families and our nation.  It's not about indentured servitude, cheap labor, and all the other things corporations beg for.  It's not even about driving our economy.

Smart immigration may help our economy as a result, but economics should not be the motivator.

The motivator is about people who have a love or desire to be a part of what we stand for as Americans.  Which many Americans seem to have forgotten right now.  We don't need temporary immigration.  That implies that a shortage exists.

There isn't a single job in this country Americans won't do.  There is pay we won't accept - because we can't survive on some of the wages offered.  There is no shortage of labor.  In a capitalist market, their cannot be.  If people aren't willing to work for the wages you offer or the job conditions you offer, you must change something.  Either improve wages or job conditions.

I think we should stop calling the problem "illegal-immigration".  I think the true problem is "illegal-employers".  Perhaps if we frame our argument that way the focus will shift away from poor people trying to survive and towards rich employers trying to exploit people.

I like that, for one thing because it's so true.  Economic populist Democrats should be going after employers for busting unions, outsourcing jobs, failing to provide health insurance, exploiting illegal immigrant labor -- all to drive down wages.  And ALL Democrats should be going after Republicans for rigging the system, as they always do, to help benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor.  Why Dems aren't screaming this from the rooftops is beyond me.

If you follow the money, you can see whom the "Illegal Employers" are supporting.  It isn't Democrats for the most part.

But it will be come 2008 should Dems take the WH and run Congress. Lets not for a second believe that the Dems will not accept contributions from these same "illegal employers" once they are back in control. The beltway shuffle is a comin!! The question lies with whether or not the Dems have the will to change the  mindset and have Justice go after those companies or turn the blind eye the Reps have once they gain control Congress.

want change badly enough to really shake things up.

So after reading this diary and its comments,  each Democratic candidate should sum it up like this:

Republicans are flimflamming the American voter on illegal immigration. They say they are for getting rid of illegal immigrants while at the same time they are taking enormous campaign contributions from the very industries that employee illegal immigrants.  Don't be fooled by their phony disapproval of illegal immigration. Hey they're making lots of money on illegal immigraton!!!

Democrats, start playing hardball or you'll lose the game!

Thank you so much Dianne, I am going to encourage every running local Democrat to use this or something like it.  I suspect this "issue" will become key in this year's state-wide elections even though it should not... sigh.

You've given me hope we can turn this buzz around on the haters.

I really do hope that Democrats can start expressing themselves in shorter, clearer, and more forceful "soundbites" to get messages across to the voters more effectively.  The GOP has been doing it for years and frankly it works. 

First, we have good and honorable positions and
secondly, we know and have good examples of what Republicans stand for and represent.  So now we need to put those two items into clearer, more concise messages.  We need to speak in sentences not in long paragraphs...otherwise the voters attention span will be lost.

Frankly, I've criticized the DPVA over the last year in their lack of communication skills but as of late I've seen excellent improvement in that area. 

One last thing, if we here in the RK-world could provide more "soundbites" that Dems could use, I think we'd do a great service to the Democratic Party. 

While I realize that the parties are taking in tremondous amounts of money but should we not take a step back and analyze the issue from a main street perspective. I know there are many "scare" tactics floating about regarding the impacts of ending the use of illegals in all the industries that were identified above, but exactly what do we estimate the impact will be on Jon and Jane Averageman. With regard to food stuffs I am fairly certain that without that labor we will be hit with a double whammy at stores, rising fuel costs going forward and eliminating cheap "illegal" labor will surely have a dramatic impact on what we pay at stores for these products. Housing is of course yet another issue where pricing will surely rise without the use of this labor force. It seesm to me if we want to sell the issue we should be starting from that perspective and ask ourselves is it important to us to eliminate the use of this labor force to such an extent that we are willing to pay 15 to 20% more for goods. It is simply a fact that if the business community does not have access to this labor force and have to employ higher wages to generate the same level of sales , prices will be going up regardless of how much money our leadership gets from their coffers.

Have corporations save money by lowering outrageous executive pay and exit packages.  I saw Bill Gates the other night on cable claiming corporations needed to be able to bring in unlimited workers.  Basically we are bringing in cheap, exploitable labor so bush's rich friends can get richer.  These folks could cut their pay and compensation in half and have their companies pay more to hire legal workers.  bush's friends would still be rich instead of outrageously rich.

http://www.aflcio.or...

JScott, this diary is not about taking advantage of people by paying them less than a living wage just so you can buy things cheaper.  That's a pretty miserly, mercenary and disgusting conviction. 

Take your Republican-views to a Republican blog...maybe you'll get a pat on the back there for such a sleazy, unAmerican defense of using illegal aliens for your benefit!

I think what Lowell's stats show is the tremendous fault line running down the middle of the Republican "Wall Street - Main Street" coalition.  The Wall Street side wants to continue to have access to cheap, easy to exploit labor -- hence, the support of Bush, McCain and others for an immigration bill.

The Main Street side, meanwhile, is (as always) hungry for scapegoats.  Beating up on blacks or women has become a bit gauche, and beating up on gays risks pushing more Republicans out of the closet, so who's left?  Latinos!

The demagogues pushing this issue may not realize that they risk ripping the Republican party to shreds in their lynch mob frenzy.  Oh, well...