I am a foreign studet i iowa and my concren is about the general opinion of the us population about imigration. In this state, governor vilsack has been working in bringing imigrants to the state with the thought that this will be beneficial. What do you think?

Immigrants are fine as long as they are upstanding people and live by our laws. The more people America gives opportunities to the better.

I think all immigrants should be treated as paroled prisoners until they prove their genuine interest in supporting America.

I am completely against helping, or giving aid to, illegal immigrents of any kind. I am all in favor of deporting them back to where they came from.

But after a thourough background check, for those in this country legally, I support it to an extent. I don't think we should open the flood gates and except anyone and everyone who shows up at our borders. The floodgates are wide open now (ask any of the dead 9-11 terrorists) so we need to close them enough to keep the bad guys out, but not too much to let the good guys in

--cheers

Well it is true that not all imigrants are upstanding and that not all of them are here for the right reasons. But what happened a couple hundreds years ago. Didn't many of imigrants came to this land looking for better oportunities of life. Before that massive imigration this was wasted land with nonbody to make it produce. After they all came and with the passing of the years the united states has become what it is now, a great and primising nation.

All praise due to iwcrabruano...Most Americans think america was always this beautiful and promising...This nation was built by us people who are so badly descriminated against now. How cynical....The things is my people were transported here and were not in favor of being here...Your people wanted to, so that is why I praise you...You all have done a great job too. Maybe that equality we seek will come about someday...

Yes this nation was built by immigrants but times change and so must society. There's no final answer to any question, we need to progress with time.

Mr Ashley, If you are refering to slavery in your last post that's a shame. Yes, Africans were torn from their land (usually purchased from dominant African tribes) and cast into slavery but that history will make our country better in the end.

If Africans weren't brought here forcefully when would they have integrated into a society that was centuries ahead of them? Would the rest of the world have left Africa alone until it was mature and open minded enough to accept Africans with total equality?

Slavery certainly wasn't the best way but it was integration. The sacrifice Africans were forced to make is forever a negative check in our history but it taught modern society valuable lessons that may not have been learned any other way.

sorry... back to illegal aliens. If someone is caught entering or living here illegally I think they should be blacklisted and denied any chance of citizenship for the next 15 years of their life. Illegal aliens are crimminals and should be treated as such.

I think some have to think about immigrants and illegal immigrants. This Great Country of ours was built on immigration. If it wasn't we would not exist as we do today. I don't think all immigration should be stopped, however illegal immigration should not be allowed.

You speak of "my people" and "your people", yet you also speak of equality. Seperating people into "yours" and "mine" is exactly why equality doesn't exist today. :/

The only scientific difference between people, is skin pigmintation. Little else.

Could you furnish a bit more information about your govenor and his program for immigration?

The Census Bureau estimates there could be as many as 13 million undocumented aliens in this country, unsupervised. Even if that number is high, the problem is out of control.

The problem puts all America at risk. Both the northern and southern borders are wide open, and the Border Patrol will tell you it does not have the manpower even to dent the flow of illegal aliens and dangerous drugs.

There is only one solution that would have an immediate impact: using the military to back up the Border Patrol. According to a poll taken last summer by Fox News, 79% of Americans support using the military to help secure our borders.

But the overwhelming number does not seem to include our elected officials in Washington. Very few of them support militarizing the border. The reasons range from citing the arcane posse comitatus law to fearing a Hispanic backlash. But laws can be changed, and politics should not intrude on the public safety. If US forces can control the area between North and South Korea, they can stabilize El Paso, Tex., and Tucson.

Bill O'Reilly-NY Daily News

My first reaction was to question the amount of undocumented aliens in your post. I think it may be higher. First, I don't trust polls, as they can be skewed depending on the questions and where the information came from. I do know that immigration in the US is fast becoming an unmanageable problem. The program calls for 5000 immigrants per year. We now have tens of thousands of immigrants every year. They are from everywhere there is a problem. Countries we had not even thought of before. Most recently the large number is from Afghanistan. This worries me for certain. How many of those are terrorists? This has already been proven.
It appears the Homeland Defense Dept. is close to approval by the Senate.. This is what we need. It has been virtually impossible to defend our borders at this time. It also seems when we do screaming and gnashing of teeth is heard.

I feel that as long as there is a need for cheap labor, businessmen, politicians, and consumers won't deal with the problem of illegal immigrants.

Exactly. And militarizing our borders, as Bill O'Reilly would have it, is no solution. Of course, I suspect that he's just advocating the impossible task of such "militarization" in order to create another argument for dispensing with the Posse Comitatus Act. What's "arcane" is the sort of police state which Mr. O'Reilly would have us live under without Posse Comitatus - and in that event, God knows the use to which our military would be put once dissent in this country is further criminalized. We saw what happened when the Act was ignored at Waco - and that was under the relatively benign Clinton Administration.

As Otseng intimates, the best - and perhaps only - way to contend with immigration "problems" is to crack down on the businesses (and individuals) which employ illegal labor. Maintain border patrols, sure, and encourage the naturalization process for illegals already resident - but realize that our borders are way too vast to ever properly police - with or without illegal military participation.

Actually, the military's main objective is to enforce the borders...of any US holding or territories therof.
Posse Comitatus was enacted so that the government couldn't use the military against the CITIZENS of this country. http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-2/752-10.html as you can see it does not apply in this case.

Darcaine

I think that's part of the solution.

But if there's a constant consumer demand for cheap products and services, the cheap workers (Mexicans) are going to fill that need, legally or not. Look at all the painters, construction workers, farm workers, maids, etc. Are companies willing to hire people for $15/hr when they can get people who can't even speak English for $5/hr? And would an employer care if he's legal or not if he can pay him in cash?

Americans might not like illegal immigrants coming into this country, but Mr American consumer is part of the problem. They demand cheap products and services. And so the only way to get that is to use cheap labor. Will consumers be willing to pay a higher price for services knowing that the employer only uses legal immigrants? I doubt it. Until that happens, I don't see the problem going away soon.

I don't blame the consumer. If we are offered less expensive products we'll buy them, of course. If they weren't on the market we couldn't buy them.

http://www.truthinmedia.org/

go to immigration

MT

Using the military would do wonders here in TX.

It would be a great opportunity to combine the border protection budget with military training. I wasted a few thousand dollars convoying down to Ft Bliss and back just to play war. If we would've incorporated some border patrol into that training we could've killed 2 birds w/one stone.

The military, the Department of DEFENSE should be used to defend our homeland.

I think that's part of the solution.

[But if there's a constant consumer demand for cheap products and services, the cheap workers (Mexicans) are going to fill that need, legally or not. Look at all the painters, construction workers, farm workers, maids, etc. Are companies willing to hire people for $15/hr when they can get people who can't even speak English for $5/hr? And would an employer care if he's legal or not if he can pay him in cash?

Americans might not like illegal immigrants coming into this country, but Mr American consumer is part of the problem. They demand cheap products and services. And so the only way to get that is to use cheap labor. Will consumers be willing to pay a higher price for services knowing that the employer only uses legal immigrants? I doubt it. Until that happens, I don't see the problem going away soon.
QUOTE]


Cheap labor is one thing, Companies taking advantage of indocumented people is another. yet, there are companies like Jon Deer that currently employ imigrants, many which are profesionals, engineers and so for. They talk about the advantages of having such employees working for them not only becaus of their work skills but because they can also help to open the market in an international basis.

Along with Darcaine this is my swan song, but I cannot help but notice the one thing everyone has ignored is the fact that union labor has become so expensive that we can no longer manufacture products in the US at competitive prices. The unions are becoming weaker and weaker because instead of saving their jobs and increasing their wages they are being replaced by immigrants or the items are manufactured out of country.
Consumers cannot have it both ways. Neither can the labor unions. It is a fact and cannot be denied.

Darcaine: I didn't think that "the military's main objective is to enforce the borders," but to defend the borders. Enforcing the borders, I thought, was the duty of the Border Patrol, a civilian law enforcement division of the INS. I may be wrong, but my understanding of Posse Comitatus is that there should be a separation between the military and civilian spheres of action - and that the aBorder Patrol would be a prime example of such a civilian authority. Indeed, the very article to which you link cites the dangers of potential exceptions to the PCA, including border duty - calling it "the wrong tool for the job" and arguing that "border duty forces the military to alter its mindset and training. The border patrol and other law enforcement agencies already have the proper mindset and qualifications and are better able to do the job." Unless Texas is being invaded by the Mexican army, it would seem that military involvement in border "enforcement" is inappropriate and, under the PCA, illegal. I am open to correction; can you clarify?

Otseng: You argue that "if there's a constant consumer demand for cheap products and services, the cheap workers (Mexicans) are going to fill that need, legally or not." True. That is why I feel that the best way to curb illegal immigration is to crack down on the businesses (and individuals) which are hiring the cheap workers. If there is no demand for cheap labor - even if through enforcement of the law - the supply should at least slow down somewhat. If an illegal immigrant knew that s/he were no more likely to find employment here than in their native country, they may be less likely to take the risk.

It appears that there are two threads that are crossing over. So, at the risk of repeating myself I will say that one thing that keeps getting overlooked here is unionized labor. These unions that once were so important to the laborers have betrayed them. Now they have priced themselves out of jobs. One can hardly blame the consumer!
I am totally against illegal aliens, but they WILL WORK. Also they work very hard. iwcrabruano says Mexicans. Well it is more than Mexicans. It is many more nationalities and they do create problems and danger. That is why I was against letting in the people from Haiti. The agreement with Cuba is wrong also, but that is the big lobby, lots of votes and who is going to go to bat for change? Gov. Bush does not like the program the way it is as it is unfair. But he is not the President or the Congress. When was the Cuba deal made? Does anyone know off hand? There are exceptions that prove the rule, but mostly entering this country should be accomplished by legal means, and that means applying and taking turns.
The Dept. of Immigration needs an overhaul and to be put under the Homeland Defense Dept.

When it comes right down to it, illegal immigrants are just that -- illegal. Nobody can argue that.

Are we to set the law aside and reward illegal activity? It doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

The original question posed in this topic was about all immigration. It is impossible, however, to have a discussion about immigration without illegal immigration being the focus.

Immigration is certainly necessary for continued growth in the United States. We were founded by immigrants and populated by immigrants. There is no doubt that immigrants have played a major role throughout American history. We can't just say, "America's full, go home".

But we do need to follow the law.

Rewarding illegal activity perpetuates illegal activity. If we tolerate people who break our laws we encourage people to break our laws. If an immigrant's first act in America is a subversion of our law, what is the liklihood they will obey other laws?

Many say business needs these immigrants. Fine. We should allow seasonal or temporary work permits to screened applicants. They shouldn't be allowed to roam our country doing whatever they feel.

Mike

Many people are upset because they believe that immigrants come here and right away apply for welfare.

They say that when their ancestors came to this country they had to have sponsors who would take them in until they were able to find employment.

Is this true?

MT

Immigrants cannot apply for welfare unless they are legal recidents or citizens of the united state. Therefore, Illegal immigrants do not come to get te benefits of a service which they are not allowed to use. They actually have a lot of problems, for example, Illegals do not often go to hospitals to get attention because their illegal status do not allow them to have any health insurance. Health care is very expensive in this coutry. Now if they have all this problems here, why don't just stay there? well, economy is so bad in those coutries that is such a temptation for people to go to wherever they can get the means to support their families. i might think that this is not my foult but the united states is not the only coutry with the problem. who actually come here are people from central america and mexico but people from south america goes to spain. there are more than 2 million of ecuatorians living in spain now. I'm not trying to justify their actions but wouldn't it be a big temptation for you if mexico's money was worth six or seven times your money..........................?

iwcrabruano, an illegal immigrant need not apply for government assistance to benefit from our infrastructure.

If an illegal immigrant drives a car, he is on my roads (and likely has no license and no insurance, both required by law). If an illegal immigrant calls the police on someone, the police office responds on my dollar. But if an illegal immigrant gets a job, he doesn't have to pay income tax? Illegal immigrants are stealing from America just by being here.

If a person, regardless of their legal status, shows up at a hospital in need of immediate care, the hospital is required to render services.

Who pays for it? I do. I either pay through taxes, or I pay through higher medical costs.

You said that health care is very expensive in this country. Well, you're right there. But there is a reason: we have the best health care in the world. According to the old saying, "You get what you pay for" (which should actually be something like "You get for what you pay").

Maybe if illegals knew they had a 99% chance of being caught or killed while entering our country, the fact that they can earn more money here would mean nothing to them were they really looking out for the best interests of their family.

Mike

Mike, your last posts have ben right on point.

I'd like to second that...

How can anybody judge if a person is illegal or not. Perhaps, the people that is using all your services are also legal and ARE NOT AFRAID OF CALLING THE POLICE OR GOING TO REQUEST THE SERVICE. Most illegals do not have the knowledge that such services exist. besides, any illegal is afraid of police because they think that police is going to send them to INS.
The point that I really want to get into about immigration as a solution for states that are currently dieing in population. Iowa for example has the biggest rate in elderly people of the united states. young people chooses to go out of the state. Plus the rate of birhts is low compared to the rate of mortality.

The solution to the illegals
Linda Chavez Columnist

| Washington's unwillingness to deal with illegal immigration has emboldened several Latin American governments to come up with their own solutions. An estimated 9 million illegal aliens from Latin America live in the United States, so Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala have recently begun issuing identification cards to illegal aliens through their consular offices in the U.S. These IDs allow illegal aliens living here to open bank accounts, obtain drivers' licenses and library cards, and fly on U.S. domestic airlines.

While many Americans may find the practice objectionable, a number of local and state governments have been quick to embrace these new "matricula consular" IDs as a way to bring illegal aliens in their communities out of the shadows, where they are easy prey to criminals and scam artists. So far, several jurisdictions in California, Texas, Arizona, Illinois, Georgia and elsewhere have decided to accept these identification cards where official government IDs are required.


Now, El Salvador has gone a step further in driving U.S. immigration policy by actually lobbying its nationals to stay in the United States -- even though they came here illegally in the first place. Salvadoran President Francisco Flores recently sent recorded messages to Salvadorans living in the U.S., reminding them to re-apply for the limited amnesty they were granted two years ago in the wake of two devastating earthquakes in their home country. The emergency measure permitted Salvadorans who entered the U.S. illegally prior to February 2001 to apply for temporary work permits, which expired in September 2002. The message from the Salvadoran president was delivered via Americatel, a long-distance carrier, to some 750,000 persons in the United States who had placed calls to El Salvador previously.


Mexico, El Salvador and other Latin American countries are taking these unorthodox steps because illegal immigration has become a safety valve for their own struggling economies. Those unable to find jobs in their own countries simply sneak across the border to the United States, where work is relatively plentiful and wages are substantially higher than at home. What's more, these illegal aliens send literally billions of dollars home to support family members left behind. Throughout Latin America, these remittances from illegal aliens living in the United States have boosted local economies, even providing needed infrastructure in some communities -- roads, schools and even sewers for remote villages. Experts estimate that remittances from family members living in the U.S. are now the chief source of foreign aid to Latin America.


But can the United States afford to have other countries encouraging their nationals to disobey U.S. immigration law? The fact is, these countries are simply taking advantage of the vacuum that exists in American immigration policy. Despite a lot of bombastic political rhetoric over illegal immigration, most politicians -- from both parties -- are unwilling to take the bull by the horns and come up with a sensible solution.


Like it or not, it's not possible simply to round up all the illegal aliens in the country and ship them home. Nor would it be desirable to do so. Our economy is simply too dependent on their labor to withstand a round up of illegals like the one the U.S. engaged in during the Great Depression. Most illegal aliens are gainfully employed doing dirty, often dangerous jobs that Americans won't take, at least not at wages that allow employers to keep the jobs here rather than ship the jobs overseas.


The only answer is a properly constructed guest worker program that regulates the flow of workers into the country, depending on economic conditions in the United States. When we face boom times and labor shortages, we should be able to bring in more workers. When the job market tightens and the economy contracts, we should be able to send them home again. Those already living and working here, albeit illegally, ought to be able to "earn" legal status by paying a hefty fine for having broken our immigration laws, learning English and demonstrating work history and skills that make them a good bet as future workers.


A guest worker program may not be the perfect solution to our growing illegal immigration problem, but it's a lot better than what we have now: U.S. officials' wink and a nod to illegal immigration and foreign governments' open encouragement to their nationals to flout our laws.

I have nothing against this program, but I wonder why Iowa doesn't encourage migration from other states.



STRANGERS ON THE PRAIRIE
Iowa's immigrant-friendly policies aren't wildly popular among its residents. But the state has little choice. It needs people.
by: Christopher Conte
Governing Magazine, Jan 7, 2002

Last year, as Iowa was erupting in controversy over a proposal to open the state to more foreign immigration, Mayor Floyd Harthun of Marshalltown quietly left home and traveled to Villachuato, a small community in the Michoacan Province of central Mexico. Harthun had learned from Mark Grey, an anthropologist at the University of Northern Iowa, that many of Marshalltown's Latino immigrants originally came from Villachuato. They account for about half of the 1,900 employees at the largest employer in Marshalltown, a Swift & Co. meatpacking plant that also generates 1,200 additional jobs at related companies (Conte forgets to mention that these jobs -- decent middle class jobs before mass immigration began -- are now paying barely a living wage--ed.)...

In late 2000, Iowa Governor Thomas Vilsack, who has said Iowa must encourage immigration to avoid economic decline, named Marshalltown and two other cities--Mason City and Fort Dodge--as "model communities" that would explore ways to attract immigrants to Iowa. Each city received $50,000 to assess its labor-force needs and develop plans to recruit immigrants. Although it seemed a modest step--Vilsack shelved a far bolder proposal by a strategic planning council to ask Congress to declare Iowa an "immigration enterprise zone" exempt from federal immigration quotas--the idea set off a political brawl (actually, the Governor was a lot more reckless than that. He made the front page of the New York Times by advocating Iowa exempt itself from federal immigration limits--ed.).

Project USA, a New York-based anti-immigration group, organized petition drives against the model cities program (actually, local citizens organized the petition drives--ed.). In Mason City, the hometown of Meredith Willson, who wrote the Broadway show "The Music Man," the group rolled out a "truthmobile"--a truck-towed billboard that said, "In Your 20s? Immigration will double the U.S. population in your lifetime."...




A tax-deductible non-profit public advocacy group headquartered in New York and dedicated to raising public debate about immigration.

ProjectUSA is for reducing immigration to sustainable levels, but is not anti-immigrant (just like an advocate of family planning is not "anti-child.")

e use the Paypal Secure online payment system. It is quick and easy to sign up, can be used all over the Internet, and, if you sign up through ProjectUSA, we get $5.00!

Please don't post full articles. Cutting and pasting the link works just fine.

Mike

ok

MT

I have mixed feelings on immigration. I am sympathetic towards illegal immigrants, no one is going to risk their lives to cross the borders simply to live off the American system. They want something better, and its a long and pricey wait to get into this country legally, especially if you're from Central America.

I do think that illegal immigrants is why working standards are so low in this country. One of our house reps, Tom Tancredo denounced our coddling of illegal immigrants, and when someone said to him "American employers often say they can not find someone do to the job." He replied "The second half of that sentence is 'That we're willing to pay.'" Most employers do not want to pay a standard wage to Americans and exploit illegals (and sometimes not so illegal) with their cheap labor.

I have issues with immigration (legal or otherwise) because it controls people's labor. Why is trade free in the Americas, but not someones labor? It means that the hard work of someone is only OK in one country, but only the product of that labor can move freely. Is that right? I dont think so. I may be somewhat sensitive to this because Im trying to move to a different country, and find it upsetting and unfair that I am not allowed to work. I want to say the world should get rid of boundries and borders, since it seems to hinder the people, but another part of me isnt convinced of the absolute rightness of it.

The immigration laws as they are today are politically and racially motivated. The recent incident in Florida is a case in point. Haitians that come to the US illegally are trated differantly than Cubans that do so. The large number of Cuban-Americans in Florida make it politically expedient to allow Cubans in; Haitians are jailed and sent back to Haiti. If immigration is to be allowed it is time for alevel playing field.

duncan@iwc

Did anyone notice that the INS will be abolished pursuant to Section 471 of H.R. 5005EAS, The Homeland Security Act of 2002? (You'll need to click on H.R. 5005, then on H.R.5005EAS, the Senate's site times out if I link directly to Section 471 - sorry).

Just wondering how that might change things....

Jaime: Yeah, I did notice that. It looks like the INS is being subsumed by the new department altogether. I find this very troubling for two reasons.

1. I think it's very dangerous to start treating immigration and naturalization as matters of "national security".
2. It implies that the new department is here to stay. If we ever have a rational president and independent Congress again, it will mean having to recreate the INS from the ground up if the extraneous Department of Homeland Security is going to be (sensibly) dismantled - unless, of course, immigration itself is to be abolished entirely under this regime (which wouldn't surprise me in the least).

Was there any doubt that the it was here to stay? I didn't think so. If there is any organization that needs to be changed from the bottom up it is the INS. Wertz you should know a bit about this since I'm sure you have at minimum gone through customs quite often. It was so inefficient, and this is such a small part of the whole.
I think it is great.

I might add what else could be done? I would really be interested in ideas.

On the contrary, its about time immigration was treated as a risk to national security. Perhaps if it were prior to 911, that tragedy would never have happened. The ability to walk accross our borders, obtains SS Cards, get a job and live in our country undetected, is a HUGE security risk.

And yes, the INS as we know it now will be abolished, but their function will not. My guess is, that it will be expanded.

--cheers

I agree that the INS had been in serious need of attention - but there is (or was) much more to the service than screening immigrants in the name of security. If that is to be the focus once the INS is subsumed into the DHS, I'm afraid that the previous problems (such as worksite enforcement, investigation of expired work permits, FOIA processing, Morrison visa administration, etc.) will just deteriorate further so that the former INS can put all its attention into racial profiling.

Once part of Homeland Security, I'm certain that the emphasis will be much more on enforcement than service. There's already a huge backlog of petitioners for naturalization - will this get any better once the INS is part of a swollen, bureaucratic money pit like the DHS? And do you think the INS's Community Relations Programs have much of a future as part of the new Defense Department? Hah!

Immigration is certainly a matter of national security.

Let me explain with an analogy.

Let's say work at a bank as the guard outside the vault (I really don't, just an analogy).

My job is to keep what is in the vault protected-- secure, so-to-speak.

If I let someone in to the vault, knowingly or unknowingly, the vault is no longer secure.

The wealth contained within the vault has been potentially compromised.

Someone could steal what is in the vault, or destroy what is in the vault. Or, they could just look around an then leave.

Either way, though, the potential for a compromising of security is great.

This is our country.

------------------------------

We are full of wealth. Money litters our streets. We can pick up trash and trade it for money. And illegal immigrants want to reap the benefits of our great nation.

Can you blame them? Of course not.

But this is the United States of America, not the United States of Earth.

America as a country is in a marvelous position. We can pick and choose who we let into our country.

If you owned a business, would you want to hire someone who is likely to contribute to the success of your company, or someone who is "disadvantaged"? Easy. You go for the sure thing.

The fact of the matter is that there are millions of people who want to become US citizens.

If they want it bad enough, they will go through any process, no matter how rigorous or time-consuming it may be.

As for who we let in, we should pick the cream-of-the-crop. No sick people. No uneducated people. We have enough of them already.

--------------------------

candun:


Of course they are politically motivated, as is any government agency . But I don't think they are necessarily racially motivated.

The Cuba/Haiti situation is purely political. If we were not in a constant attempt to politically spite Castro, those Cubans that make it here would be turned away as well.

In reference to Haiti, isn't more than 50% of the population HIV positive? Why would we want them here? They serve no purpose for America, other than to bump the Democratic base.

But be compassionate you say.

I'm compassionate. It is my strongest desire to see every oppressed/poverty stricken nation to rise above their obstacles and become successful.

But letting their poorest and least educated into America doesn't help.

Sure, we deport more Hispanic people than Caucasian people each year. But, don't you think that is because we have a larger influx of Hispanic immigrants?

----------------------------------

Much more to say, but I am rambling.

More to come.

Mike

Allow me to clarify a bit: of course national security is part of what the INS was all about (and no small part at that). My fear is that security will now become the focus of whatever immigration/naturalization cell will exist within the DHS at the expense of a wide variety of other functions which the INS served; that immigration and naturalization will become solely about security. The INS was already an unwieldy bureaucracy in its own right with, as I mentioned for example, a major backlog in naturalization applications. Something tells me that the existing bureaucracy will not be much streamlined by being amalgamated into an even less wieldy bureaucracy. If security is not to become the almost exclusive focus, I would worry that its national security functions might suffer from now being part of a part of an enormous whole. To what extent will any of the agencies which will make up the DHS be improved as a result of being thrown into this monstrous blender? Our track record with major bureaucracies is not all that great...

The reasons you state are the reasons P. Bush wanted to do away with the civil service/unions in the DHS. This is what will make it more efficient. As long as you have that stuff in there the dept will just grow. We all know how that works.

I disagree, Mouse. I've worked in a variety of fields with a variety of companies, some public, some private, some smallish, some huge, all with varying degrees of inefficiency. I have never known of that inefficiency originating with unionized typists or carpenters or researchers. Inefficiency, in my experience, almost always comes from the top - with (often wiser) workers being forced to carry out the ill-advised instructions of their incompetent managers. Granted, grievous social ills like the forty-hour week, lunch breaks, maternity leave, and the restriction of child labor have had a damaging impact on output and all those crippling safety regulations have clearly cut into the bottom line - but when a company, department, agency, or organization is failing, I would tend to look to those at the top (if you can find them) and not at those who are actually doing the work.

I don't think I made myself clear. What I meant was that once Unions get involved companies, etc. will grow by definition. It can go back to "featherbedding" on the railroads....or the old story about the worker who couldn't make the coffee until the other worker brought the water!. This protection of jobs helps and causes inefficiency by their very nature.
If the people at the top do not have the authority to hire and fire they cannot be efficient. So to just blame the upper management argument does not hold water with me.
I do not argue that unions were important. I do think they became very corrupt and do not do for the workers what they were designed to do. As I've said in other posts, their graft and power became too much and they priced themselves out of jobs. They were good at looking at the present and not the future.
Nowhere did I sanction child labor. I assumed we were all reasonable people here. Child labor laws are that..laws. That is the time when unions did what they were supposed to do.
There was a strike at a company I am familiar with and the executives and engineers ran the company in order to break the strike. It did and the result was the gross inefficiency was found. The company ran at a better capacity, and jobs were lost as a result of the strike. So I do

to finish what got cut off.
do not agree with your premise.

About the INS and national security....
Let's keep in mind that illegal aliens did not commit any of the terrorist attacks on 9-11. None of those guys walked across our border without the knowledge of the INS- not one of them was here illegally! All of them came in with VISA's. Whether it be tourist or student visas, it doesn't matter, the government let them come. Absolutely nothing about the new homeland security laws could have protected us from what happened on 9-11. Saudi Arabians are not required to be fingerprinted or interviewed before coming to the US on a visa. Not then and not now! 50% of immigrants are currently coming from Mexico. I know many of you don't like that for one reason or another but let's face it- odds are slim will have a wave of radical Mexican Catholic terrorism!
Immigration law is and will probably continue to be motivated by what works for the polititians. It sure isn't equally applied to all who wish to come or to all who have family here. If any of you feel safer since yesterday, forget it! Nothing will change because it doesn't work for Bush to be against the Saudi's, he's too interested in using them to fight Saddam.

Mouse: I agree that many unions in the US have become corrupt, profit-making machines which may no longer have the best interests of their members in the fore. But if the unions are no longer protecting the workers who belong to them, it is up to that membership to do something about it. It is not up to the government to abolish them.

I wasn't seriously suggesting that you were advocating child labor, by the way (or an eighty-hour work week or anything else). My apologies if the irony wasn't clear. The point I was trying to make was that unions have brought about many changes for the better for workers in this country and, if there's a problem with unions, the solution is not necessarily their destruction. I do not believe that the abolition of unions is the solution to inefficiency in government agencies. I have worked for companies which were unionized and companies which were not. The unions do not, to my knowledge, create the corporate structures, the leadership hierarchies, or the levels of management which exist in most large bureaucracies. Waste - of time, money, and human resources - is not, in my experience, affected by the presence or absence of unions.

The president is not, as far as I know, talking about reducing the work force (in terms of numbers) when he advocates the removal of unionization. Indeed, it has been stressed repeatedly, that the number of jobs will not change (though they will need to increase to populate the new divisions within the DHS). He is merely talking about reducing or removing what remaining protection the unions do provide to the workers.

Again, speaking from my own experience, any place I've ever worked that had efficiency problems was the result of mismanagement (or top-heavy middle management). The company for which I'm currently doing some work reduced their workforce fairly drastically last spring. The (non-union) department I deal with lost nearly 20% of its personnel to early retirement packages, golden handshakes, and the like. All of them were salaried staff, not waged workers, and the majority were mid- to upper management. Efficiency, since then, has skyrocketed.

I didn't really think you were being personal, but wanted to be sure. I don't think unions should be done away with completly either. I guess I didn't do well in my post. I was trying to say that I think by not having them in this case should help it be more efficient.
I've had experiences too,and it seems that cutting at all levels has been necessary. Many businesses are getting leaner and meaner. As you say, a lot of middle management jobs have gone and this is good.
Hopefully, the immigration dept. under Homeland Security will be more efficient. I certainly hope so because something must be done.
Have a Happy Holiday..now I HAVE TO GO AND BAKE PIES.

Immigration is immigration. If we're going to fingerprint Saudis I think we should fingerprint the Chinese, Mexicans, Israelis, and Italians alike.

Immigration seems to be a big issue for everybody. And ofcourse there are many who are worried about

who they let in and who they let out. Some even think that immigrants are stealing the goods of America.

The United States of America surely is a great Nation and so it was few hundred years ago before the

piligrims came and ate dinner with the indias and gave thanks to God that they found someone to assist

them when they most needed it ( the piligrims). But things didn't remain happy for ever and it is not

necesary for me to tell the story that everybody knows already and how it ended. It is enough for me to say

that the real owners of the hole land were put in small portions of it. Perhaps it was a change for good but it

is not in my hands to judge if it was or not. My question at the begining was nothing to do with the politics of

immigration but with the economy of it. Studies have proved that where there is immigrants (no matter

which nationality) Industry has grown!!!!!!!!!!. Now you tell me is it beneficial for the Economy?

P.S.
DID YOU KNOW THAT ILLIGAL IMMIGRANTS HAVE MEANS TO PAY TAXES?
Well they do and that means that they are also contributors. Contributors to, public health, roads and so on.....