TALKING POINTS: Immigrant Labor in the US

Is Immigrant Labor Straining or Stimulating the U.S. Economy?

What are some of the myths associated with immigration? Are they true? Take this test on Immigration in the US, see how much you know.

Immigration Policy Reform: How can immigration policy be reformed to support the US economy yet limit illegal immigration? How can the immigrant workforce be encouraged and aided to be documented workers?

The Senate and House are in strong opposition when it comes to how the Federal Government can better handle immigration and illegal immigration. The Senate would like to see amnesty for workers already in the United States illegally and create a “Guest Workers” program to allow immigrant labor into the United States. The House is trying to piecemeal together legislation before the November election to increase border patrols and stricter enforcement at the Mexico/US border.

Southwest Farm Press Article

Newday Article

Border States of the United States and Mexico met recently to discuss what to do in light of inactivity at the federal level. While US Border States called for stricter border security to limit immigration, Mexican officials called for greater support for economic development from the United States, to create bridges instead of walls at the border.

Check out this Immigration Reform document from the Center for American Progress.

Many organizations have stepped up to help out immigration populations to ensure that they have access to basic human services. Immigrants have lacked access to job safety, affordable and decent housing, healthcare and education. These organizations have helped immigrants get services in their native languages, especially healthcare services. They are teaching immigrants English, organizing immigrant labor and teaching immigrants about their rights.

All of our featured guests are spokespeople for organizations that have been recognized by the Ford Foundation and given the prestigious Leadership for a Changing World award from 2001-2005.

Leadership for a Changing World seeks to recognize, strengthen and support leaders and to highlight the importance of community leadership in improving people’s lives. The program seeks to confirm that resourceful leaders are bringing about positive change in virtually every community. Together with these leaders, Leadership for a Changing World hopes to facilitate a new dialogue about community leadership, one that encourages others to appreciate that leadership comes in many forms and from many different communities.

Each year, Leadership for a Changing World recognizes 17-20 leaders and leadership groups not broadly known beyond their immediate community or field. Nominated community leaders may work in fields that include: economic development; community development; environment and environmental justice; human rights; citizen participation and government accountability; human development; sexual and reproductive health; education reform; youth development; religion and social change; arts and social action; and access to media, including new technologies. http://leadershipforchange.org/

TALKING POINTS: 9/11 5 year anniversary

Talking Points - 9/11: Five Years and Billions Later

Carl Conetta

1. The various costs and risks undertaken as part of America's three post-9/11 wars are considerable, and many are deferred.
   
2. The potentials for new and broader confrontations are growing as a direct consequence of current missions.
   
3. While the potential for broader confrontation increases, America's capacity to win or manage potential future conflicts are diminishing.
   
4. The US should focus its counter-terrorism efforts on credible threats targeted at the United States or US citizens and assets abroad.
   
5. We should place greater emphasis on homeland security, appropriate intelligence, military, and law enforcement capabilities, and maintaining cooperative international security relationships.
   
6. The US should exercise extraordinary restraint when contemplating "regime change," military occupation, or operations aimed at suppressing insurgencies that enjoy significant popular support.
   
7. The wisest course is to "demilitarize" US support for democratic transition. http://www.comw.org/pda/

Anita Dancs

1. Rather than focusing solely on terrorism, the federal government should adopt an "all-hazards" comprehensive approach to homeland security.
2. Natural and accidental disasters are much more common than terrorist attacks; federal grants to state and local governments should reflect this reality.
3. The Department of Homeland Security has identified 36 first responder capabilities specific to terrorism. Of the 36, a full 30 are all-hazards.
4. In its funding, the federal government should explicitly allow funding for all-hazards preparation without a necessary terrorism focus.
5. Furthermore, the federal government should integrate the timing and role of proactive federal support during an emergency in the National Response Plan
6. http://nationalpriorities.org/

Winslow Wheeler

1. US defense spending will exceed $570 billion in 2006, more than any year since 1946. However, US armed forces are smaller today than at any time since 1945.
   
2. Our soldiers are sent into combat inadequately trained, supplied and equipped. Before the Iraq invasion, the Army's Chief of Staff warned that the army budget was $3.2 billion short for base operations, ammunition, and training.
   
3. Scores of American soldiers have died or been seriously wounded as a result of inadequate Congressional oversight.
   
4. Members of Congress rely much too heavily on data from the Department of Defense rather than from independent sources.
   
5. Staff for Congressional committees should be hired and fired by bipartisan decision, be better trained and qualified, enjoy whistle-blower protection, and be barred from working for defense contractors or at the Pentagon for five years after they leave the Hill.
   
6. http://www.cdi.org/program/index.cfm?programid=37

Steven Kosiak

1. The administration has used the "Global War on Terrorism" label to fund a wide variety of activities and missions not directly related to the anti-terrorism mission.
   
2. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, federal funding for defense, military operations (primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq), homeland security, and related activities has increased by a total of some $843 billion.
   
3. The administration should budget for ongoing military operations in advance, as it does for other areas of the budget.
   
4. The administration should provide a clearer breakdown of how funding is being allocated among various military missions (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan and homeland security).
   
5. The administration and Department of Defense need to provide a clearer picture of how funding is being divided between military operations and meeting Department of Defense's peacetime force structure, modernization and readiness requirements.
   
6. http://www.csbaonline.org/

Dr. Cindy Williams

1. The nation is not getting the most out of its sizeable financial investment in security.
   
2. Much of the 50% increase in military spending since 9/11 reflects "business as usual" rather than making the nation safer from today's threats.
   
3. Three categories of federal spending are closely related to national security: offense, defense, and prevention.
   
4. Defense and prevention are the best bargains, but receive only 11% of the national security budget.
   
5. Even small shifts of funding from offense into defense and prevention could go a long way toward making the nation more secure.
   
6. http://web.mit.edu/polisci/index.html

William Hartung

1. The global war on terrorism (GWOT) is a misnomer.
2. Al Qaeda is a "network of networks that cannot be defeated in the traditional sense.
3. Terrorism is a tactic - not an enemy. We cannot "win" a war on a tactic.
4. The size of the military budget or the decision to use military force is a poor measurement or barometer of policy success.
5. More money and the use of force do not mean we will have more security, or that stated security goals (e.g. nation building or democracy promotion) will be achieved.
6. http://www.worldpolicy.org/index.html

Charles Pena

1. The Army is 100,000 soldiers short of being able to keep up current deployments
2. Rule of thumb for active duty units is 3:1 rotation ratio. For 135,000 troops in Iraq 270,000 are needed for rotation. Total = 405,000, a number close to total size of active duty Army
3. The Army has 64,000 troops deployed elsewhere overseas, which require 192,000 troops to sustain it
4. Deployments have been extended to keep troops in Iraq for longer than normal
5. To prevent soldiers from leaving the military when the enlistment term expires, the military resorted to the use of "stop-loss" orders
6. Increasing Army size would be problematic in that it is barely meeting recruiting goals to maintain its current end strength
7. Increasing size would also confirm that the United States is an occupying power and encourage the Muslim world to unite against the United States
8. The best solution is to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq before the Army goes “bust
9. http://antiwar.com/pena/

Charles Knight

1. When our intelligence agencies resort to torture it shows a lack of creativity and imagination because in domestic laws, we forbid confessions under pressure
2. With secrecy as to how prisoners are being treated, then there is no information to exercise democratic responsibility of making a judgment on the government; it goes against democratic principle
3. The issue is that the United States as a state sponsor of torture –perpetrated or exported- is having a global rippling effect that will deeply damage American diplomacy
4. This issue on torture also deserves serious national analysis and public debate
5. http://www.comw.org/pda/pubs.html

Barry Posen

1. A well planned disengagement from Iraq can overall reduce military, economic and political costs. Although costly and risky, it cannot be worse than the United States present situation
2. American presence in Iraq intensify the problems of the Iraqi government being able to manage basic services and functions as well as the Iraqi security forces not contributing to the insurgent fight
3. Political leaders of Iraq’s three main factions (Kurds, Sunni and Shia) will not make difficult compromises so long as the United States remains in Iraq
4. American presence fuels social sources of insurgent support, and at the same time provokes resistance and reduces incentives for the Iraqi government to take necessary control to combat it
5. http://bostonreview.net/BR31.1/posen.html

Michael Intriligator

1. The United States is in a worse situation than on 9/11. We have moved backwards, in part due to:
2. The creation of the dysfunctional Department of Homeland Security
3. The War in Iraq that has, as a result, become a breeding ground and training center for terrorists
4. The declaration of a "Global War on Terrorism" that provided the wrong organizing principle for this effort
5. The failure to catch or kill Osama bin Laden and his chief henchmen
6. The failure to follow up on the initial successes in eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan
7. A focus on defending airplanes, ignoring or excluding other potential targets, such as ports, nuclear power plants, chemical plants, etc
8. An emphasis on defense rather than offense, that would have taken direct action against the terrorists
9. Failure to deprive terrorists of essential resources of funding, media access and publicity recruits and agents, intelligence and information, etc.
10. http://www.epsusa.org/index.htm