...and one that Latinos will be asking as soon as they hear more from Obama.

Man, I really like your politics - agree with most the time.  But Hugo, there is no doubt that illegal immigration drives down wages - and there is more than anecdotal evidence supporting this.

There is a negative economic and social impact with continuing to allow illegal immigration.  

I'm not saying that we should round up millions of people and deport them, but I am saying that it is wrong to deny that illegal immigration has a harmful side to it.  Otherwise, if there is no problem why should we bother to "fix it"?

What we should do is what Obama proposes: "they would first have to pay a substantial fine and back taxes, learn English, satisfy a work requirement, and pass a criminal background check."  I am opposed to any type of EMPLOYER sponsored visa because that is anti-competitive and amounts to indentured servitude.  Workers should be able to change jobs at will.  I also think the felons and gang members should be the ones we focus our deportation efforts on.

Hugo, you must admit that illegal immigration is why we no longer have poor white and black people working on farms.  My family owns a farm - I saw the transition first hand.  It is true that illegal immigrants aren't "stealing" farm jobs today - those jobs were lost a generation ago.

In construction, you see this same transition being repeated - and we aren't talking about just parts of the construction industry.  It is systematic.

We talk about integration in schools.  If you go to many of these work places, they aren't integrated.  That isn't good for America - we need immigrants to integrate into our society and not remain lifelong members of an underground and exploited workforce.

I would like to see a day when white people, black people, and hispanics are in the same field, on the same roof together, building the same house together, and working in the professions together.  These are all honest jobs and there is no reason that field work should be reserved for Mexican people and certain occupations reserved for white or black people.  I'd also like to see a day where the rail road tracks and MLK BLVD isn't what divides black, white, and hispanic neighborhoods.

The problem with illegal immigration is that certain jobs become "Mexican jobs" or "illegal jobs".  A legal immigration program would make these jobs "American jobs" and would open up many opportunities up the career ladder for our immigrants.

I didn't get too much into enforcement on this post, but I believe that 80% of the enforcement efforts should be in our interior and focused on the workplace after we have a legal path for current illegal aliens.  That is the root of the problem and enforcement there is how we prevent us from having this same debate 30 years from now.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough, but what I am going after is that most Latinos disagree with many of Hillary's quoted positions, yet they still overwhelmingly support her.

My personal problem is that Hillary is expressing herself in a divisive way when talking about immigration, as if she were a Republican politician.

Especially egregious is the quote about how it would be great to deport everyone if it weren't because it is too expensive.

She wants to have her race baiting cake and eat it too.

Now, on the issue of wages, my problem with the way Hillary's statement is made is her failure to qualify correctly. For most Americans, undocumented workers don't influence their wages at all. It is only in certain sectors where this is occurring. Not qualifying this properly encourages scapegoating of Latinos for our current economic problems.

We have talked about this issue many times, and I believe that we both recognize that our positions are nuanced on this issue. And it is natural since it is pretty complex.

You properly qualified where the wage depression exists. And yes, there is certain negative push within agriculture and construction job wages.

However, this is focusing too much on the market view of the problem. According to this view, as soon as the supply of labor disappears, wages should rise. But a labor pool alone doesn't explain wage stagnation. You recognize that a lot of wages that are not affected either by employer-sponsored visas or illegal immigration have been stagnant or have fallen since Bush got into office.

I prefer looking at the problem from another perspective, one that you use often, in fact. You have mentioned before that the root of the problem is that we have lousy worker protection laws that make exploiting workers easy.

If today's pool of exploitable workers, illegal immigrants, disappears, another set of exploitable workers will take their place, and nothing would have changed a lot.

Look at Walmart. Most of its employees are American born, yet they are treated barely better than undocumented workers.

If, instead, we had strong labor laws that would protect all workers, then we would all benefit from it.

I am wrong to assume that we agree on this? :)

I can't find anything you said that I don't agree with.  I knew we'd find that 1% ;-)

I see race baiting all over the place on this issue, unfortunately.  It comes from many different angles - which is why Congress can't sit down and have a reasoned discuss on the issue.

As you know, I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton so I'll resist the urge to take a swipe at her - but I do agree with your sentiment.

As a person with a nuanced position, you must realize that there are groups out there who believe anyone who would impose any restriction on illegal immigration is inherently racist.  You should read the blogs from lawyers representing the ILW and their fans.  

There are two extremes in this debate - rarely do we find two people caught somewhere in the middle.  What an odd pair we are.

The immigration problem is linked directly to the trade policies set in place by Bill Clinton and carried on by George Bush. The farmers in South America are being driven out of business because they can't compete with government subsidized grain from the US being dumped in their countries. Also, thousands of other jobs have be sent to China.

It is deplorable that Hillary Clinton is trying use this problem to make believe she knows the solution. Her husband's administration was the source of the problem! This was a very Republican-like policy and Democrats voted for it because a Democratic president proposed it.

Trade policies together with Bush-like economic policies adopted in Mexico have pushed many Mexicans to the U.S.

NAFTA was started during George H.W. Bush presidency. From what I understand, then Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, who was an American-educated economist, was very eager to have it. He was so eager that he pretty much gave the whole pie away.

NAFTA doesn't seem to be helping Mexican or American citizens. It makes sense to go back and try to adjust it.

Did Clinton finished the process?

US Citizens of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity have a slew of issues beyond the agenda of giving illegals driver's licenses.

Why do people insist on trying to claim they are a monolithic voting block, especially on illegal immigration...but maybe, just maybe they like everyone else are worried about their country's economic future?

Hi, TurnVirginiaBlue,

Polls on Latinos show that they do care about immigration.
http://pewhispanic.org/reports...

What follows is not poll data but my personal opinion for why this matters.

First, for recent immigrants, the topic matters because the legal status of different extended family members are different. There may be some who are citizens, some who have green cards, and some who are undocumented.

And it is not even  the case that each nuclear family has the same status. Some children may be born here, some children may be illegal; one of the parents may have legal status, another one doesn't.

So strong enforcement is potentially going to break up families, extended and nuclear ones.

Second, the topic, as it is discuss by Republicans is seen by Latinos as scapegoating. When Republican politicians discuss it, it quickly turns into a hate-fest of complaints of people talking in Spanish and Latinos cultural practices.

That Hillary is using the same language as divisive Republicans is very unsettling.

Finally, my topic is not whether there are some Latinos who are anti-immigration. Yes, we do have some of them, and they are viewed as Latino uncle Toms.

The question is about support for the base. I don't expect pro-lifer conservatives to overwhelmingly support a pro-choice candidate.

The point is, since Hillary is using the same language as the divisive Republicans, why should Latinos overwhelmingly support her?

Most of the proposals I have seen require paying a fine, back taxes, a criminal background check, and learning English in order to gain some sort of status (be it permanent residency, a working permit, or citizenship).

Since many of the people here illegally don't know English, do you think that most of them will decline to learn the language or do you think most will learn?  

I still feel that even with the most generous proposals, there will be family members who find themselves unable to gain legal status because of the language issue, and also those who have criminal backgrounds.  In short, there will likely be two degrees of separation between you and someone who is deported.  

It is important that a nation have a common language.  We speak two languages in my home but not learning to read and speak English fluently simply is not an option for anyone in my home.

The people who are given the chance to live legally in this country but still refuse to learn English or who join gangs and commit crimes should expect to be deported.  We should try and open our arms to those who make an effort to become lawful citizens in our country - but fully prepared to turn away those who cannot or will not adapt to our society.

I hope that the hispanic community is willing push the agenda of say Obama, and not oppose every attempt to impose order.  We can be humane in the process of integrating our society, but groups like the National Council of La Raza have quite an extreme agenda and I find their efforts to be harmful to the debate.

You have these two extremes.  One extreme says close the borders and lower immigration to zero - using fear as a tool in the debate.  The other extreme says anything goes - and pulls the hate card any chance they get.

The extremes in this debate need to prepare themselves for an immigration program that neither will like, and both sides need to stop the divisive rhetoric.  We need to be pragmatic in what we do.

Again, Latinos care about immigration because it can affect their families and they see the debate as scapegoating. That was the main point of my answer to TurnVirginiaBlue, who made the good point of asking if most Latinos would even care about this.

Obviously Latino families want to stay together, but most will understand that if one of their members engages in criminal activity, they won't get green cards or citizenship. It seems to be pretty self evident, and since there is agreement here, I don't see the point of further discussing it.

And the point about English seems strange to me since there is a lot of pressure in the Latino  immigrant community to learn English. Most TV shows stress this, and English courses are constantly advertised on TV.

Besides, the community is strongly aware that learning English opens the doors to better paying jobs and active civic participation.

I don't know one person who refused to learn English who had a chance and the ability to do it.

The Latino community learns the language at about the same rate as other immigrant communities have done or do. My father's nuclear family immigrated to the U.S. between the 1950s and the 1970s. All of the children speak English. In fact, every member of the family under 50, regardless if they were born in the U.S. or not, speaks English.

I would like to say that Latinos are able to keep Spanish as a living language in their lives, but this is not the case. Their children and grandchildren lose the language the same way other immigrants have done so.

The reason why it appears that Latino immigrants are not learning the language is mainly because the there is a strong immigration force still going on. This means that who who don't know English tend to be the recent immigrants.

Of those who have been around for a longer time who can't speak it, poor education in their own language may be a barrier. Or they may have learning disabilities.

Finally the continuous barring of education to undocumented aliens may also have something to do with this. If there are less and less places where people can go to night school and learn the language, what can they do?

Again, I agree that people committing crimes shouldn't stay. No debate there.

As for English, I wouldn't have a problem if people had to go to take a certain amount of English classes to show their  effort to learn English. I may be wrong, but I feel that we may agree that we shouldn't unduly punish those who can succeed at mastering the language after they tried if learning disabilities or poor education are a problem, right?

"And the point about English seems strange to me since there is a lot of pressure in the Latino  immigrant community to learn English."

I agree that most immigrants want to learn English.  But, there are many immigrants who have not learned.  The older they are, the more challenging this will be for them.  The question isn't if the want to learn, but rather if they ultimately will learn.

"As for English, I wouldn't have a problem if people had to go to take a certain amount of English classes to show their  effort to learn English. I may be wrong, but I feel that we may agree that we shouldn't unduly punish those who can succeed at mastering the language after they tried if learning disabilities or poor education are a problem, right?"

I didn't consider learning disabilities - or elderly parents.  So I agree that there will be cases where we should be humanitarian.  I don't see the point in forcing elderly people living with their children to learn the language since they won't be in the workforce.  

Most children will learn English rather quickly - they pick this stuff like old pros up if they are in public schools.  My brothers came from Korea at age 10 and 12 - they were fluent in a year or two.  One is now a doctor serving in Iraq.

The people who will have the most difficult time learning English are those who started learning later in life.  Your ability to develop language skills diminishes over time.  I know, because I have tried to learn Japanese.  My 5 year old picks it up much faster than I do.

I think for the English requirement to be successful we need to put more money in ESL programs for adults.  That is where the biggest challenge will be, since learning another language comes naturally for younger people.  I would say that anyone who actively goes to an accredited ESL program should not be deported for English deficiencies.  The important thing is that they are trying to learn and actively attending class is evidence of that.

but I believe that the Latino community would be strongly behind this idea. Recent immigrants want to learn the language.

I think pushing this open border agenda down our throats is insane, inaccurate and absurd economically.  Count me out on your agenda.

TurnVirginiaBlue,

I truly believe that there is a lot more that unite us than pushes us apart.

My main interest is economic justice because of its connection with human dignity. I believe that this is your position as well.

we share a skepticism on neoliberalism--I really dislike calling something "free"-trade when it isn't really "free".

Hey, I even have you in my watch-list diaries at Kos :)

Read again my diary, and you will see that there is no advocating for an open border.

I have never advocated an open border. It never has entered my mine, to be honest. Opening the border with today's weak labor laws in both countries would only make it worse for both Mexican immigrants and American workers.

Economics and immigration are complex. We got to have nuanced dialogues even though politics abhors subtleties. There are many potential traps in the discussion.

Let me stress this again: the point of the diary is to show how Hillary Clinton is, for lack of a better word, race baiting. And she is using one of her strongest demographics as the bait.

Regardless on what position you have on this issue, you must agree that this is a low move.

Hope to hear from you soon :)

Right, race baiting huh.  That's probably the number one talking point of the US Chamber of Commerce/La Raza/ agenda..

right anyone who wants sane immigration policy and controls, enforcement is a racist xenophobe.

There is nothing that unites me with the open border gang pushing bills written by the US Chamber of Commerce, NASSCOM.

and I find it especially disgusting that every time a real labor economics statistics comes out, there is this massive cry of "racism" in response to economic and labor economic realities.  

Any sort of real interior enforcement comes along, oh my, that's racist.

It's truly a twist to push for the corporate global labor arbitrage agenda that will cause a race to the bottom for labor and fighting against that is....racist.

You may not remember me too well, but I do remember the conversations that we had about half a year ago. I haven't been active writing in blogs for the past 8 months until recently for personal reasons.

But believe me: we do agree on these issues.

And if you still don't believe me, look at this exchange. This is pretty much the point that I am trying to make right now.

#
Heh, I feel that chilll on a daily basis now (4+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
   tgray, BobOak, mariachi mama, Sentido

When Republicans brought up immigration as an issue a year ago, I knew that it would be bad news for any of us with Mexican ancestry.

It is especially creepy when you find it in liberal blogs. I started avoiding right-wing media since this started, but when the sentiment begins to move into liberal web sites, you know that there is trouble.

This is what I see as the main problem: Bush has hurt most Americans with his tax, labor, and worker policies for the last 7 years. They feel the pain now. But Americans don't know how to think in economic terms.

So conservatives point at undocumented workers and say, "Look, this is the cause of your misfortune!"

This way, Americans can hate a minority instead of demanding stronger worker and labor laws.

by Hugo Estrada on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:32:10 AM PST

[ Parent ]

   *
      adsf (3+ / 0-)

     Recommended by:
         tgray, Hugo Estrada, numen

     I'd say this whole "flavor" is precisely what separates out the "Tancredo" followers versus the Progressives/Populists who are the "DeFazio" followers on this topic  also why I hate the name calling out here because this is so obviously the Corporate cheap labor lobby/global labor arbitrage agenda and if no one really talks about that...

     this above divide will get worse.

     http://blog.noslaves.com

     by BobOak on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:28:05 PM PST

     [ Parent ]
         o
            Yep, that is right (0 / 0)

           Let me add that there is an added problem with the discussion: the "Trancedo" faction poisons the debate so strongly that some honest progressives do start seeing any kind of opposition to the bill or amendment as being progressive "Trancedo"-speak.

           I guess we who opposed this bill should have done a better job in clearly framing the bill in a way that truly reflected our position. Got to write it down for the next one.

           by Hugo Estrada on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 06:03:27 AM PST

           [ Parent ]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

That was my position then, and it is still my position now. Using the language developed in these comments, my problem with Hillary is that she is using "Trancedo" rhetoric, and that is what I find offensive.

I believe that we both can agree that Trancedo is using immigration to spread anti-Latino sentiments, right?

And, am I wrong to assume that we both find what Trancedo does to be wrong, correct?

Finally, I want to make clear that I personally believe that people can advocate for immigration restriction without being prejudiced, as it is done in Raising Kaine all the time. I wish that the tone used here to discuss immigration would be the tone used in our whole country.

If I am correctly assuming that we agree on the above points, I don't see where the disagreement is. :)

Hope to hear from you soon. I have a keen interest in erasing any misunderstandings between both of us. :)

The day your little gang of open borders bloggers attacked anyone who isn't for their corporate agenda,ganged up on anyone on the major blogs, threatened them, tried to get them banned, and people like kos posting on the front page "comprehensive" immigration reform bills are "Progressive" convinced me you people are the anti-thesis to working America.

Those bills pass and working Professionals will be decimated, absolutely decimated.

We are NOT on the same side.

I have a lot of respect for you. I have a great amount of admiration for those diaries that I remember reading from you. It makes me happy to see your name next to diaries.

Some bloggers didn't treat you respectfully in major blogs. They threatened you, and tried to get you banned. They must have accused you of saying that which you never said, ignored your explanations, and ended up calling you names.

Those who attacked you were wrong to do so. They didn't bother to hear what you had to say or cared to get a true understanding of your message. No one should ever clump individuals into stereotypical groups to turn real human beings into easy targets of hatred.

I agree with you on all of these points.

We must have the courage to overcome fear and hatred, and come together as one people. Hatred is easy to fall for, but it takes courage to love and understand others.

I still consider you a friend, even if we never met. And to you I bring you this poem from Jose Marti:

Cultivo una rosa blanca
en junio como enero
para el amigo sincero
que me da su mano franca.

Y para el cruel que me arranca
el corazón con que vivo,
cardo ni ortiga cultivo;
cultivo la rosa blanca.

With its translation,

I cultivate a white rose
In July as in January
For the sincere friend
Who gives me his hand frankly.

And for the cruel person who tears out
the heart with which I live,
I cultivate neither nettles nor thorns:
I cultivate a white rose.