Senator TILLIS (R-NC) Proposes Serious Immigration Compromise (1 Viewer)

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This has been a fairly straightforward solution for a long time, so what's interesting about the proposal is that it's largely in response to Trump's success at cutting immigration to the point where the consequences have become clear.

• Path to citizenship for DACAs
  
• Additional border security and port upgrades
  
• Guest worker programs to increase cheap workforce
  

Tillis framed immigration action as one of the most important ways Congress could help the economy in part by easing worker shortages. 

“We’re in a crisis here, we’ve got headwinds, we’ve got the threat of a recession,” he said. “This is the time to maybe set politics aside a little bit and get good policy in place so we can do our part to lessen the burden that people are feeling here in the country.”

Tillis said measures that could form the basis of a deal include a pathway to citizenship for so-called Dreamers -- young immigrants brought to the U.S. as children -- border security upgrades, and a guest-worker program to alleviate labor shortages in industries like restaurants.

The devil is in the details, and this is a long way from being done, but most Dems I know would sign up for this in a heartbeat.

 

[Amused to Death]

The devil is in the details, and this is a long way from being done, but most Dems I know would sign up for this in a heartbeat.

Aren't the first two (all 3?) things Dems have been pushing for anyway?

 

[John123]

Basically this is a surrender.  Hopefully it goes nowhere. 

 

[Amused to Death]

Citizenship for DACA is a no-brainer for anyone with compassion. They did nothing wrong and many of them know no other country.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Sounds good to me.  I'll take it.

 

[Sand]

The devil is in the details, and this is a long way from being done, but most Dems I know would sign up for this in a heartbeat.

I don't think so.  Most Democrats want voters.  They don't care about workers, just votes.  Without a path to citizenship for all those who illegally entered our country I don't see the blue team agreeing to this.  I would be ok, personally, with a path to residency and a hard lock on future illegals.

I am for citizenship for DACA kids.  It has to be rolled into a bigger bill, otherwise the blue team will, like in the Reagan days, promise the world and then renege.  Congressional Democrats have tried to separate out DACA into it's own topic, which sounds ok, but we all know they'd do that and then not give an inch anywhere else to make our problem better.

 

[Sand]

Sounds good to me.  I'll take it.

Pair what he says with restrictions on the welfare state that guest workers are allowed and I'd be fine with that compromise.

 

[Sand]

Aren't the first two (all 3?) things Dems have been pushing for anyway?

No, not at all.  They want a path to citizenship, not a path to residency.  If you just remember that this is all about votes and has nothing to do with compassion for people all the discourse from the hill makes a ton of sense.

 

[Amused to Death]

No, not at all.  They want a path to citizenship, not a path to residency.  If you just remember that this is all about votes and has nothing to do with compassion for people all the discourse from the hill makes a ton of sense.

Sorry you feel this way. Being a Dem, and knowing how I feel, I'll respectfully disagree.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Let's do it.

Also, and no offense, add some measure of clamping down on illegal entries because "now all of the southern border is wide open and every state is a border state because of Joe Biden!!!" repeated ad nauseum is frankly really tiring. And even though it's more a trope, I do get where people are coming from on this. So if we're going to compromise (which good gosh can we please?) let's make sure we address those concerns. That's what compromising means.

 

[John123]

Let's do it.

Also, and no offense, add some measure of clamping down on illegal entries because "now all of the southern border is wide open and every state is a border state because of Joe Biden!!!" repeated ad nauseum is frankly really tiring. And even though it's more a trope, I do get where people are coming from on this. So if we're going to compromise (which good gosh can we please?) let's make sure we address those concerns. That's what compromising means.

Why not just follow through on the promises made to America in 1986? 

 

[timschochet]

No, not at all.  They want a path to citizenship, not a path to residency.  If you just remember that this is all about votes and has nothing to do with compassion for people all the discourse from the hill makes a ton of sense.

I want a path to residency not to citizenship. Always have. 
 

Im for this but it seems like small potatoes because it doesn’t deal with the central issue: what to do with the 15 million illegal immigrants already here? Most of them aren’t DACA. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I want something to get done but somebody needs to convince me that the “guest worker program for restaurants” isn’t just a way to screw lower-income Americans while enriching restaurant owners.

 

[Desert_Power]

This has been a fairly straightforward solution for a long time, so what's interesting about the proposal is that it's largely in response to Trump's success at cutting immigration to the point where the consequences have become clear.

• Path to citizenship for DACAs
  
• Additional border security and port upgrades
  
• Guest worker programs to increase cheap workforce
  

The devil is in the details, and this is a long way from being done, but most Dems I know would sign up for this in a heartbeat.

Sounds good, but I doubt there are enough votes to break the filibuster for this.

 

[The Z Machine]

I want something to get done but somebody needs to convince me that the “guest worker program for restaurants” isn’t just a way to screw lower-income Americans while enriching restaurant owners.

But they are getting screwed by illegal immigration right now.  What's the difference?

 

[timschochet]

I want something to get done but somebody needs to convince me that the “guest worker program for restaurants” isn’t just a way to screw lower-income Americans while enriching restaurant owners.

Restaurant owners aren’t rich. Many of them were forced out of business during Covid, and most of those that survived are barely hanging on. 
They cannot afford to pay their workers more than the going wage, and in most cases the going wage is far below minimum wage. If you force them to pay minimum wage they will go out of business and the only restaurants left will be chains owned by corporations. 
And this is the reality for many small businesses. If you want to shut them down, by all means go ahead and attempt to enforce legal wages. It will cost you billions and wreck the economy, but hey the laws will have been upheld! 

 

[Philo Beddoe]

My plan is way better.

 

[steeler6]

Restaurant owners aren’t rich. Many of them were forced out of business during Covid, and most of those that survived are barely hanging on. 
They cannot afford to pay their workers more than the going wage, and in most cases the going wage is far below minimum wage. If you force them to pay minimum wage they will go out of business and the only restaurants left will be chains owned by corporations. 
And this is the reality for many small businesses. If you want to shut them down, by all means go ahead and attempt to enforce legal wages. It will cost you billions and wreck the economy, but hey the laws will have been upheld! 

I forgot if it was on one of his shows or in the book I read by him but Anthony Boudain said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that without the cheap labor that illegal immigrants provide, the restaurant industry would collapse. I'll try to find the exact quote.

 https://www.golifa.com/anthony-bourdain-serious-reservations/

Here's one article on his views. 

 

[timschochet]

I forgot if it was on one of his shows or in the book I read by him but Anthony Boudain said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that without the cheap labor that illegal immigrants provide, the restaurant industry would collapse. I'll try to find the exact quote. 

Right. Everybody knows this. And it’s not just the restaurant industry. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Restaurant owners aren’t rich. Many of them were forced out of business during Covid, and most of those that survived are barely hanging on. 
They cannot afford to pay their workers more than the going wage, and in most cases the going wage is far below minimum wage. If you force them to pay minimum wage they will go out of business and the only restaurants left will be chains owned by corporations. 
And this is the reality for many small businesses. If you want to shut them down, by all means go ahead and attempt to enforce legal wages. It will cost you billions and wreck the economy, but hey the laws will have been upheld! 

Yes, my expectation is that lots of restaurants will go out of business (I'm not sure I agree that it will all be the smaller restaurants rather than big chains).  I'm not as convinced as you are that's such a terrible thing.  What is so magical about the number of restaurants we have now?  

 

[timschochet]

Yes, my expectation is that lots of restaurants will go out of business (I'm not sure I agree that it will all be the smaller restaurants rather than big chains).  I'm not as convinced as you are that's such a terrible thing.  What is so magical about the number of restaurants we have now?  

Well I don’t know, for one thing it keeps a lot of people employed, allows them to pay for their homes, feed their families, all that good stuff. But hey if you think putting them all out of work will be beneficial, go for it. 

 

[bigbottom]

I am for citizenship for DACA kids.  It has to be rolled into a bigger bill, otherwise the blue team will, like in the Reagan days, promise the world and then renege.  Congressional Democrats have tried to separate out DACA into it's own topic, which sounds ok, but we all know they'd do that and then not give an inch anywhere else to make our problem better.

If you support citizenship for DACA kids, you shouldn’t view it as a concession for which you need something in return. 

 

[The Z Machine]

If you support citizenship for DACA kids, you shouldn’t view it as a concession for which you need something in return. 

Agreed.  Separate it out and get it done now. 

 

[timschochet]

 (I'm not sure I agree that it will all be the smaller restaurants rather than big chains).  

As to this, it’s a pretty basic rule of business: whenever you enforce government regulations, the corporations have the deep pockets to absorb the costs, the small guy doesn’t. The small guy goes under and the corporation gets bigger. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

Why not just follow through on the promises made to America in 1986? 

If the response in a thread about compromise is "just do that thing that was promised 36 years ago that hasn't worked", it may be that compromise isn't what you seek.

It's too bad there weren't any Republican presidents or a Republican controlled congress in that entire time to follow through on that.

Or maybe we can discuss the proposals brought forth and, I know this part is tough in the country nowadays in particular, actually agree to improve something that needs improving?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yes, my expectation is that lots of restaurants will go out of business (I'm not sure I agree that it will all be the smaller restaurants rather than big chains).  I'm not as convinced as you are that's such a terrible thing.  What is so magical about the number of restaurants we have now?  

Whimsically deciding that it's okay if people's businesses get looted, burned, shut down, or driven into bankruptcy is not a politically popular decision.  Not saying you personally are doing this, but Democrats can't argue that the 2024 election is The Election To Save Our Democracy while simultaneously adopting positions that repel independents.

(Well, they can make that argument of course, but it won't be very credible.)

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

As to this, it’s a pretty basic rule of business: whenever you enforce government regulations, the corporations have the deep pockets to absorb the costs, the small guy doesn’t. The small guy goes under and the corporation gets bigger. 

Not every restaurant has the same business model.  Lots of fast food chains, for example, have built their businesses around providing food at the lowest possible price.  Those are the businesses I would think would be most likely to suffer from increased labor costs.  Restaurants that are known for having great food or great atmosphere seem more likely to handle increased labor costs.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Whimsically deciding that it's okay if people's businesses get looted, burned, shut down, or driven into bankruptcy is not a politically popular decision.  Not saying you personally are doing this, but Democrats can't argue that the 2024 election is The Election To Save Our Democracy while simultaneously adopting positions that repel independents.

I'm speaking only for myself I'm not trying to pitch a political strategy.  

 

[timschochet]

Not every restaurant has the same business model.  Lots of fast food chains, for example, have built their businesses around providing food at the lowest possible price.  Those are the businesses I would think would be most likely to suffer from increased labor costs.  Restaurants that are known for having great food or great atmosphere seem more likely to handle increased labor costs.

No offense but this is very naive. Most of your fine dining establishments have low income, mostly illegal workers doing all the bus boy work, and sometimes the cooking as well. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I want something to get done but somebody needs to convince me that the “guest worker program for restaurants” isn’t just a way to screw lower-income Americans while enriching restaurant owners.

I don't know what the guest worker program is, but assuming it's something that reduces restaurant labor costs, it's hard to see how it would enrich restaurant owners in competitive markets over the long run. In competitive markets, reduced costs result in lower prices, not higher margins. Maybe the program would screw over American restaurant workers while enriching restaurant customers?

I'd expect restaurant owners to support such a program -- not because they expect to be enriched by higher margins, but because they expect to be more likely to stay open due to higher volume resulting from lower prices. (Theoretically, higher total volume would keep more restaurants open, but wouldn't increase the profitability of the average restaurant that stays open.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Not every restaurant has the same business model.  Lots of fast food chains, for example, have built their businesses around providing food at the lowest possible price.  Those are the businesses I would think would be most likely to suffer from increased labor costs.  Restaurants that are known for having great food or great atmosphere seem more likely to handle increased labor costs.

I suspect that McDonald's can substitute automation for labor more easily than a higher-end restaurant can, though.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

No offense but this is very naive. Most of your fine dining establishments have low income, mostly illegal workers doing all the bus boy work, and sometimes the cooking as well. 

I freely acknowledge that my views in this area are idiosyncratic because of these personal preferences:

1. I don't really go to restaurants a lot so I wouldn't care if restaurant prices rose significantly
   
2. I think the low cost of restaurant food is one driver of the obesity crisis in the United States so I think it would actually be good if those prices went up
   
3. I'm willing to support higher taxes and a stronger safety net so that it isn't quite so devastating if people are working less  
   

I don't know what the guest worker program is, but assuming it's something that reduces restaurant labor costs, it's hard to see how it would enrich restaurant owners in competitive markets over the long run. In competitive markets, reduced costs result in lower prices, not higher margins. Maybe the program would screw over American restaurant workers while enriching restaurant customers?

I'd expect restaurant owners to support such a program -- not because they expect to be enriched by higher margins, but because they expect to be more likely to stay open due to higher volume resulting from lower prices. (Theoretically, higher total volume would keep more restaurants open, but wouldn't increase the profitability of the average restaurant that stays open.)

 The "staying open" part seems like a pretty strong incentive for restaurant owners. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I suspect that McDonald's can substitute automation for labor more easily than a higher-end restaurant can, though.

I am pro-automation.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I am pro-automation.

Me too, but it doesn't lead me to predict that fast-foods restaurants will have the harder time adjusting to higher wages.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The "staying open" part seems like a pretty strong incentive for restaurant owners. 

Yes, that's why I think they'd support the program.

 

[timschochet]

I freely acknowledge that my views in this area are idiosyncratic because of these personal preferences:

1. I don't really go to restaurants a lot so I wouldn't care if restaurant prices rose significantly
   
2. I think the low cost of restaurant food is one driver of the obesity crisis in the United States so I think it would actually be good if those prices went up
   
3. I'm willing to support higher taxes and a stronger safety net so that it isn't quite so devastating if people are working less  
   

 The "staying open" part seems like a pretty strong incentive for restaurant owners. 

I agree with many of your goals. But not your means of achieving them. Because like most well meaning solutions that involve government regulation of businesses, they achieve the opposite effect that you are seeking. 

Enforcing legal wages on restaurants will not shut down the fast food chains; they will grow in number because the corporations that own them can absorb the cost of either higher wages, or more likely, switching to automation. The small business guys will fold. The result will be MORE people eating junk food, not less, and MORE obesity, not less. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I agree with many of your goals. But not your means of achieving them. Because like most well meaning solutions that involve government regulation of businesses, they achieve the opposite effect that you are seeking. 

Enforcing legal wages on restaurants will not shut down the fast food chains; they will grow in number because the corporations that own them can absorb the cost of either higher wages, or more likely, switching to automation. The small business guys will fold. The result will be MORE people eating junk food, not less, and MORE obesity, not less. 

I don't know what you mean by "absorb higher wages."  Are you saying that fast food companies won't raise prices when labor costs go up?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Well I don’t know, for one thing it keeps a lot of people employed, allows them to pay for their homes, feed their families, all that good stuff. But hey if you think putting them all out of work will be beneficial, go for it. 

If they can't earn a living wage they can't afford a house. 

 

[dozer]

Most Democrats want voters.  They don't care about workers, just votes.

I don’t think this is true. In my Central Missouri town of about 20,000 people I could keep multiple drywall crews busy, paying $20-25 an hour EASY.

I turn down all kinds of construction jobs because I don’t have the labor.

The pool of workers that I have that would do this work is wrought with slackers, guys on probation, guys who need a ride because of DUI’s, and entitled young people who feel the work is beneath them.

I don’t even consider who they will vote for…

I’m much better off just doing handyman type jobs. Plenty of “old man” work and time to go fishing…

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Enforcing legal wages on restaurants will not shut down the fast food chains; they will grow in number because the corporations that own them can absorb the cost of either higher wages, or more likely, switching to automation. The small business guys will fold. The result will be MORE people eating junk food, not less, and MORE obesity, not less. 

Even assuming more higher-end restaurants than fast-food joints would fold (which seems plausible but uncertain, IMO), it's not clear that the substitution from Ruth's Chris to McDonald's would be larger than the substitution from restaurants to home-prepared meals. I wouldn't necessarily expect the overall result to be more fast food and more obesity.

 

[crackattack]

Citizenship for DACA is a no-brainer for anyone with compassion. They did nothing wrong and many of them know no other country.

Completely agree  

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If you support citizenship for DACA kids, you shouldn’t view it as a concession for which you need something in return. 

Ideologically I'm with you 100.

Practically, the reality of the world is that it's not going to get done without giving something up.  So giving up something you basically agree with anyway (no one is for open borders) to get it seems like a pretty good deal.

And it's good politics too -- since a bipartisan deal takes this off the table as a cudgel.  (Same with abortion whenever the Supremes get around to the defacto ban.)

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Sounds good, but I doubt there are enough votes to break the filibuster for this.

For sure -- "doing what's best for the country" has frequently been overcome by politics and it could happen here.

But the Republicans who are reportedly involved are not the usual suspects, and when you add in Murkowski, Snowe, Romney, et al you get pretty close to 10 if there's a package they can agree on internally.

 

[sho nuff]

For sure -- "doing what's best for the country" has frequently been overcome by politics and it could happen here.

But the Republicans who are reportedly involved are not the usual suspects, and when you add in Murkowski, Snowe, Romney, et al you get pretty close to 10 if there's a package they can agree on internally.

Yeah. Would love to see real compromise and bi partisan effort here.

 

[John123]

If the response in a thread about compromise is "just do that thing that was promised 36 years ago that hasn't worked", it may be that compromise isn't what you seek.

It's too bad there weren't any Republican presidents or a Republican controlled congress in that entire time to follow through on that.

Or maybe we can discuss the proposals brought forth and, I know this part is tough in the country nowadays in particular, actually agree to improve something that needs improving?

Why are you making this partisan?  I never once mentioned a party, did I?  How about we think about the country and not the divisiveness both parties thrive on?    It isn't that it hasn't worked, it's that our government reneged on implementing it.  I want them to implement the promises made previously before we agree to new concessions.  That seems fair to me.

 

[Sand]

Sorry you feel this way. Being a Dem, and knowing how I feel, I'll respectfully disagree.

Ah, I was maybe not clear here.  I am not talking about the common man, I was talking about the Hill.  If you listen, really listen, to blue folks on the hill on this issue they all talk about a path to citizenship.  It's so obvious that this whole cluster is about getting more blue voters.  It just is.

Now, that leaves the common man to worry about the humanity of all this has wrought.  I'm with you there.  I want DACA kids here.  I empathize with why we get illegal immigrants (economics is almost 100%).  

Maybe I'm jaded, but I see a path to residency for illegals to be filibustered by the blue team.  That is not part of the playbook.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For all the “residency not citizenship” people, why?  If we are bringing in people to live and work here indefinitely, shouldn’t they have a say in our democracy?  What’s the justification for not giving them a path to citizenship?

 

[Shula-holic]

I agree with many of your goals. But not your means of achieving them. Because like most well meaning solutions that involve government regulation of businesses, they achieve the opposite effect that you are seeking. 

Enforcing legal wages on restaurants will not shut down the fast food chains; they will grow in number because the corporations that own them can absorb the cost of either higher wages, or more likely, switching to automation. The small business guys will fold. The result will be MORE people eating junk food, not less, and MORE obesity, not less. 

Hell has frozen over, I totally agree.  The same is true for our farms.  I'm not sure we want to be making it harder on those farm workers today, given the shortages that are likely to come out of the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

Im for this but it seems like small potatoes because it doesn’t deal with the central issue: what to do with the 15 million illegal immigrants already here? Most of them aren’t DACA. 

This reminds me of the discussion last night.  Under the most optimistic view, any negotiated deal is unlikely to truly deal with the central issue because too many people want the undocumented/cheap labor and it also makes for quite the political football.  I'm not sure at the core if our politicians truly see this as a problem, but rather see it as a political pandering point and/or a way to get cheap labor. 

I think to truly address it, one has to be willing to take the consequences of unraveling the cheap labor market.  As stated above, that has its consequences.  I believe we need to secure the border and get a program that determines who is here, who is crossing that border, while also truly having a work visa program to fill the jobs that I think most agree need to be filled.  Let's be honest here, American workers don't want many of these jobs.  We need to be realistic about that part, and it's rarely said.  While it is very true that this puts downward pressure on lower end American workers at minimum wage and near minimum wage jobs, these workers are also filling other jobs our economy needs filled that are jobs Americans rarely take.

 

[Desert_Power]

For sure -- "doing what's best for the country" has frequently been overcome by politics and it could happen here.

But the Republicans who are reportedly involved are not the usual suspects, and when you add in Murkowski, Snowe, Romney, et al you get pretty close to 10 if there's a package they can agree on internally.

I hope so.  It's interesting coming from Tillis. We need to get much more immigration.

 

[Amused to Death]

For all the “residency not citizenship” people, why?  If we are bringing in people to live and work here indefinitely, shouldn’t they have a say in our democracy?  What’s the justification for not giving them a path to citizenship?

Just a guess, but could it be because one side may concede to let them stay but really don't want them to vote? Seems weird but you're absolutely correct. If you're ok with them living here permanently, why not allow them a path to citizenship?