host

So, as a consequence of your proposal, the underskilled, undereducated, less able...the vast numbers with below average intelligence quotients who are legal, can suck it up, with no compensation to offset the effect on wage rates of the huge increase to the legal pool of lower tier labor, as they did in the aftermath the last "great amnesty", in 1986, and later, when the promised, strict enforcement of existing laws", failed to materialize. The less advantaged can G-F-T, in other words.

Your amnesty is only a portion of the total effect of your proposal. The net effect, after all of the relatives of the predominantly young now illegal laborers you are extending amnesty to, also are admitted as permanent US residents, is a shitload of low skilled, working age folks.

<h3>As your amnesty progresses towards implementation, additional millions will find their way here in an attempt to qualify.</h3>

All of them, pressing against the hopes for higher wages and better employment opportunities of the legal residents. All of them, affecting only the lowest sector of employment, pushing down the wage rates of only that sector...the sector absolutely least able to absorb such an economic setback, a wealth and opportunity redistribution. Who benefits, why, the wealthiest among us, of course. As usual, it's "tough shit" for the least of us.

Good plan, such an expression of largess, with the meager opportunities for wealth accumulation, of the legal population with the least.

We communicate a policy where laws that are intended to maintain the same justice and opportunity for all who follow the law, and for those who break it, does not apply if you're fortunate enough to be an illegal immigrant, or Scooter Libby.
What does an amnesty communicate to those who followed procedure, waited in line, were separated by immigration restricitions from loved ones for long periods, who applied, were turned down, and then reapplied, and those who have been permanently separated due to denial of visa applications, if those who break the law, are given what you propose?

At the least, employers of illegals who profited handsomely between the spread on what they paid these workers, compared to what they charged for products and services (did new homes built by cheap illegal immigrant labor, result in cheaper prices passed on to consumers, than if higher priced legal laborers were hired?), will be rewarded for their lawbreaking or plain selfish greed. At most, changes in the law will hand them a new class of captive, low priced labor, kept docile and compliant by employer "sponsorship" provisions.

A lot to ignore, to arrive at such magnanimity, as you, and so many others have, if you think about it?