The two main positions on this topic are
1. secure the border first as a top priority. This appeals to the right, which wants to uphold our existing laws.
2. provide a path to citizenship for over 11 million illegal immigrants already here. This appeals to the Left, which focuses more on humanitarian concerns.
According to mainstream media reports today (7/7/06), the president started to backslide on his position of creating a guest worker program. His position seemed to shift closer to the House of Representatives bill. His original position seemed consistent with "compassionate conservatism."
There has been some recent discussion that no immigration reform will take place because the House and Senate are so far apart that they won't be able to compromise. Representatives from the House have said no bill is better than the Senate bill. The issue is currently going through more hearings, which to some seems like a delaying tactic.
The current immigration system appears broken. It is understaffed to meet demand and the allocations given to the different countries does not match up to the number of people that desire to move to the US.
Regulating businesses more closely to discourage them from hiring illegal aliens has been touted as a way to reduce illegal immigration by decreasing the demand for cheap labor. Perhpas if the minimum wage were lower and the path to citizenship was more practical for Mexicans the US could actually benefit economically from increased immigration. It could generate tax revenue from the workers who now get paid under the table. However, if the wage that businesses have to pay for unskilled labor is higher, then they won't hire as many workers, which reduces their opportunity to produce and sell goods. This is an opportunity loss for the US economy.
So while reforming immigration may make the US safer, it may also result in making it less competitive economically. --Frontline9 01:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
In order to solve a problem, one should know the root cause instead of constantly focusing on the symptoms. Why are the Mexicans fleeing their country?
- They're not fleeing away from anywhere, they're moving towards something. That something is economic opportunity. They're coming to the United States because there are jobs here. That's at least one of the reasons. So, to solve that aspect of the problem, we need to take control of the job market. There are laws on the books that require employers to limit their hiring to citizens of the US. Those laws are not being enforced. If they were, the jobs would dry up for non-citizens, and they would be forced to return to Mexico and get politically active there. Chadlupkes 01:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- You can say they are fleeing something just as well as you can say they're moving toward something. If opportunities for illegal immigrants were poorer here fewer would come. On the other hand, if there were more opportunities for workers in their home countries fewer would be motivated to seek employement in the US. SethDelisle 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken. So let's fix our trade policies to provide Mexico with domestic opportunities that fulfill the needs and dreams of their people. Chadlupkes 17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- It seems you are incorrect in your assessment that they are 'not fleeing away from anywhere.' Recently watching a show called "30 days" a member of the Minutemen spent 30 days with a family of illegal immigrants. While they came to America for better opportunity, it was rampant corruption they were fleeing from, in addition to the lack of financial opportunities. The father of the family stated he would prefer to live in Mexico, but can't due to the horrific government. It is apparent now why Mexicans come here for the financial opportunities but still are so devoted to their country. They would rather live there, if not for the corruption. Midian 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- This raises the interesting question of how to affect the domestic policies/conditions of another country. Is liberalizing trade necessary/sufficent or even desired? Is annexation an option (say, if voted on by both populations)? What other conditions should be necessary for annexation (e.g. cultural, political, geographic etc.)? (This is really a restating of questions posed in Government Structure.) Note: annexation is posed as an option is this case in order to satisfy the apparent desire of a large number of Mexicans to be American instead. Why not grant their wish without the need for migration? MarkTilley 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- A Day Without a Mexican A film comedy that playfully puts the question: "What happens if all the Mexicans dissappeared from California?". The film's fictional speculation is interlaced with background and historical information relevant to understanding the issues of Mexican immigration.