TED Conversations

Robert Winner


This conversation is closed.

Immigration Reform

It would be good to skip the political debate of is it good or bad.

The question is : If we are to have immigration reform what should it include.

According to documents obtained by The Associated Press, the senators will call for accomplishing four goals:

—Creating a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here, contingent upon securing the border and better tracking of people here on visas.

—Reforming the legal immigration system, including awarding green cards to immigrants who obtain advanced degrees in science, math, technology or engineering from an American university.

—Creating an effective employment verification system to ensure that employers do not hire illegal immigrants in the future, including requiring prospective workers to verify legal status and identity through a non-forgeable electronic system.

—Allowing more low-skill workers into the country and allowing employers to hire immigrants if they can demonstrate they couldn’t recruit a U.S. citizen; and establishing an agricultural worker program.

We need to address the entitlements such as social security without ever paying into the system and other entitlements.

What would you like included.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 29 2013: We did this before then the employers did just what they wanted to do. Why won't that happen again since that's what the Chamber wants to do. Why shouldn't Americans be able to have jobs in America? Maybe we need a little Obama Kick A... like with BP. But then the Republicans won't support it.
    • thumb
      Jan 29 2013: BP may not be a good selling point for Barack Hussein Obama's "kick a- -" style of protecting America's interests. His environmental protectors allowed the use of copious quantities of a dispersant called Corexit. Corexit made the oil 52 times more toxic and allowed hydrocarbons to deeply penetrate beaches and possibly groundwater. Corexit did its job of breaking-up the oil to make the immediate situation look far less serious than it really was. Sounds less like kick a - - leadership and more like bungling bureaucracy to me. Also, to what are you referring when you say, "We did this before. . . "? And, finally, who, or what, is "the Chamber"?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.